Comparison of endotracheal intubation, combitube, and laryngeal mask airway between inexperienced and experienced emergency medical staff: A manikin study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Medical Service (EMS) personnel manage the airway, but only a group of them are allowed to engage in Endotracheal Intubation (ETI). Our purpose was to evaluate if the use of laryngeal mask airway (LMA) or Combitube can be used by inexperienced care providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, prospective manikin study was conducted. Fifty-nine participants were randomly assigned into two groups. Experienced group included 16 paramedics, eight anesthetic-technicians, and inexperienced group included 27 Emergency Medical Technician-Basic (EMT-B) and eight nurses. Our main outcomes were success rate and time to airway after only one attempt. RESULTS: Airway success was 73% for ETI, 98.3% for LMA, and 100% for Combitube. LMA and Combitube were faster and had greater success than ETI (P = 0.0001). Inexperienced had no differences in time to securing LMA compared with experienced (6.05 vs. 5.4 seconds, respectively, P = 0.26). One failure in inexperienced, and no failure in experienced group occurred to secure the LMA (P = 0.59). The median time to Combitube placement in experienced and inexperienced was 5.05 vs. 5.00 seconds, P = 0.65, respectively. Inexperienced and experienced groups performed ETI in 19.15 and 17 seconds, respectively (P = 0.001). After the trial, 78% preferred Combitube, 15.3% LMA, and 6.8% ETI as the device of choice in prehospital setting. CONCLUSION: Time to airway was decreased and success rate increased significantly with the use of LMA and combitube compared with ETI, regardless of the experience level. This study suggests that both Combitube and LMA may be acceptable choices for management of airway in the prehospital setting for experienced and especially inexperienced EMS personnel.

Hypertonic saline, normal saline or neither: which is best for uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock? An experimental study in goats.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effects of various fluids on uncontrolled hemorrhagic shock (UHS). Controversy exists over the appropriate doses and types of fluids for best treating UHS. This study evaluated the effects of hypertonic saline (HTS), normal saline (NS), and no fluid resuscitation (NFR) on UHS. METHODS: Thirty goats were anesthetized and underwent right leg ablation. The animals were randomly assigned to equal NFR, HTS, and NS groups. The following features of UHS were analyzed: hemoglobin, heart rate, blood loss, mean arterial pressure, bleeding time, and pH. Animals were sacrificed two hours after ablation. RESULTS: All of the goats who received HTS died within 60 minutes. Four goats in the NS group and one goat in the NFR group died within 120 minutes. The NFR group had significantly higher hemoglobin values than the NS and HTS groups at the end of the trial. Blood loss in the HTS group was greater than in the other two groups (p<0.05). The NS group had higher blood loss than the NFR group (p<0.05). Mean arterial pressure in the HTS group decreased sharply toward zero within the first 60 minutes. In the NFR and NS groups, mean arterial pressure was higher than in the HTS group (p<0.05), and remained constant at 60mmHg after 35 minutes. The NFR group had higher pH values compared to the other two groups (p<0.05). CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that HTS is not suitable for treating UHS when compared to NFR and NS. Goats treated with NFR had superior values for all UHS features, including hemoglobin, pH, blood pressure, and bleeding time, compared to those treated with HTS and NS. Pre-hospital field treatment with NS or HTS may worsen the condition until surgical repair is accomplished.