Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16551
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHolbery-Morgan, Lachlan-
dc.contributor.authorAngel, Cara-
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Michelle-
dc.contributor.authorCarew, James-
dc.contributor.authorDouglas, Finn-
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Robert-
dc.contributor.authorHood, Natalie-
dc.contributor.authorRechtman, Andrew-
dc.contributor.authorScarff, Christopher-
dc.contributor.authorSimpson, Nicholas-
dc.contributor.authorStewardson, Andrew J-
dc.contributor.authorSteinfort, Daniel-
dc.contributor.authorRadford, Samuel T-
dc.contributor.authorDouglas, Ned-
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Douglas F-
dc.date2017-01-11-
dc.date.accessioned2017-01-30T21:38:34Z-
dc.date.available2017-01-30T21:38:34Z-
dc.date.issued2017-02-
dc.identifier.citationEmergency Medicine Australasia : EMA 2017; 29(1): 63-68en
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/16551-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: Lifesavers in Australia are taught to use pocket mask (PM) rescue breathing and bag valve mask (BVM) ventilation, despite evidence that first responders might struggle with these devices. Novices have successfully used the Laryngeal Mask Airway (LMA) Supreme and iGel devices previously, but there has been no previous comparison of the ability to train lifesavers to use the supraglottic airways compared to standard techniques for cardiac arrest ventilation. METHODS: The study is a prospective educational intervention whereby 113 lifesavers were trained to use the LMA and iGel supraglottic airways. Comparisons were made to standard devices on plastic manikins. Successful ventilation was defined as achieving visible chest rise. RESULTS: The median time to first effective ventilation was similar between the PM (16 s, 95% confidence interval 16-17 s), BVM (17 s, 16-17 s) and iGel devices (18 s, 16-20 s), but longer for the LMA (36 s, 33-38 s). The iGel frequently failed to achieve ventilation (10%) compared with the PM (1%, P < 0.01) and LMA (3%, P < 0.01) but was not worse than the BVM (3%, P < 0.57). Hands-off time was similar between the BVM, LMA and iGel (10 s for each device), but worse for the PM (13 s, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Lifesavers using the PM and BVM perform ventilation for cardiopulmonary resuscitation well. There appears to be a limited role for supraglottic airway devices because of limitations in terms of time to first effective ventilation and reliability. Clinical validation of manikin data with live resuscitation performance is required.en
dc.subjectAirway managementen
dc.subjectCardiac arresten
dc.subjectLifesavingen
dc.subjectSimulationen
dc.subjectSupraglottic airwayen
dc.titleCompetence in the use of supraglottic airways by Australian surf lifesavers for cardiac arrest ventilation in a manikinen
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleEmergency Medicine Australasia : EMAen
dc.identifier.affiliationLife Saving Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationAmbulance Victoria, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSchool of Medicine, Deakin University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSurf Life Saving Australia, Sydney, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationEmergency Department, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Paediatrics, Albury Base Hospital, Albury, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Anaesthesia, St Vincent's Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Care Unit, University Hospital Geelong, Geelong, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationIntensive Care Unit, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of General Medicine, Austin Health, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28078762en
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/1742-6723.12719en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.type.austinJournal Articleen_US
local.name.researcherRadford, Samuel T
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
crisitem.author.deptIntensive Care-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

30
checked on Mar 28, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.