Laryngeal Tube Practice in a Metropolitan Ambulance Service: A Five-year Retrospective Observational Study (2009-2013).

Background: The endotracheal tube (ETT) is considered the gold standard in emergency airway management, although supraglottic airway devices, especially the laryngeal tube (LT), have recently gained in importance. Although regarded as an emergency device in case of failure of endotracheal intubation in most systems, we investigated the dynamics of the use of the LT in a metropolitan ambulance service without any regulations on the choice of airway device. Methods: A retrospective, observational study on all patients from the Municipal Ambulance Service, Vienna in need of advanced airway management over a 5-year period. Differences between years were compared; influencing factors for the use of the LT were analyzed using multivariable logistic regression. Results: In total 5,175 patients (mean age 62 ± 20 years, 36.6% female) underwent advanced airway management. Of these, 15.6% received the LT. LT use increased from 20 out of 1,001 (2.0%) in 2009 to 292 of 1,085 (26.9%) in 2013 (p < 0.001). The increase between each consecutive year was also significant. Paramedics more frequently inserted the LT than physicians (RR 1.80 (95%CI 1.48-2.16); p < 0.001). Female patients received a LT less frequently (RR 0.84 (95%CI 0.72-0.97), p = 0.013). There was no difference regarding airway device due to underlying causes requiring airway management and no relationship to the NACA-score. Conclusion: In a European EMS system of physician and paramedic response, the proportion of airway managed by LT over ETT rose considerably over five years. Although the ET is still the gold standard, the LT is gaining in importance for EMS physicians and paramedics.

The capability of professional- and lay-rescuers to estimate the chest compression-depth target: a short, randomized experiment.

BACKGROUND: In CPR, sufficient compression depth is essential. The American Heart Association ("at least 5cm", AHA-R) and the European Resuscitation Council ("at least 5cm, but not to exceed 6cm", ERC-R) recommendations differ, and both are hardly achieved. This study aims to investigate the effects of differing target depth instructions on compression depth performances of professional and lay-rescuers. METHODS: 110 professional-rescuers and 110 lay-rescuers were randomized (1:1, 4 groups) to estimate the AHA-R or ERC-R on a paper sheet (given horizontal axis) using a pencil and to perform chest compressions according to AHA-R or ERC-R on a manikin. Distance estimation and compression depth were the outcome variables. RESULTS: Professional-rescuers estimated the distance according to AHA-R in 19/55 (34.5%) and to ERC-R in 20/55 (36.4%) cases (p=0.84). Professional-rescuers achieved correct compression depth according to AHA-R in 39/55 (70.9%) and to ERC-R in 36/55 (65.4%) cases (p=0.97). Lay-rescuers estimated the distance correctly according to AHA-R in 18/55 (32.7%) and to ERC-R in 20/55 (36.4%) cases (p=0.59). Lay-rescuers yielded correct compression depth according to AHA-R in 39/55 (70.9%) and to ERC-R in 26/55 (47.3%) cases (p=0.02). CONCLUSION: Professional and lay-rescuers have severe difficulties in correctly estimating distance on a sheet of paper. Professional-rescuers are able to yield AHA-R and ERC-R targets likewise. In lay-rescuers AHA-R was associated with significantly higher success rates. The inability to estimate distance could explain the failure to appropriately perform chest compressions. For teaching lay-rescuers, the AHA-R with no upper limit of compression depth might be preferable.