• Thomas Mitterlechner, Artur Wipp, Peter Paal, Alexander M Strasak, Volker Wenzel, Thomas W Felbinger, and Christian A Schmittinger.
• Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
• Resuscitation. 2011 Jun 1;82(6):740-2.

IntroductionIn a model of severe simulated upper airway haemorrhage, we compared two techniques of performing endotracheal intubation: (1) suctioning via the endotracheal tube during laryngoscopy with subsequently advancing the endotracheal tube, and (2) the standard intubation strategy with performing laryngoscopy, and performing suction with subsequently advancing the endotracheal tube.MethodsForty-one emergency medical technicians intubated the trachea of a manikin with severe simulated airway haemorrhage using each technique in random order.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the number of oesophageal intubations between suctioning via the tube and the standard intubation strategy [8/41 (20%) vs. 6/41 (15%); P = 0.688], but suctioning via the endotracheal tube needed significantly more time [median (IQR, CI 95%): 42 (20, 39-60) vs. 33 (15, 35-48)s; P = 0.015].ConclusionsSuctioning via the endotracheal tube showed no benefit regarding the number of oesophageal intubations and needed more time when compared to the standard intubation strategy.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

15 keywords...

hide…