• Nobuyasu Komasawa, Ryusuke Ueki, Noriyasu Yamamoto, Kazuaki Atagi, Shin-ichi Nishi, Yoshiroh Kaminoh, and Chikara Tashiro.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Mukogawa-cho 1-1, Nishinomiya, Hyogo 663-8501, Japan. nkomazaw@hyo-med.ac.jp
• Resuscitation. 2012 Mar 1;83(3):365-8.

BackgroundRecent resuscitation guidelines for infant cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) emphasise that rescuers should minimise the interruption of chest compressions. To that end, supraglottic devices such as laryngeal mask airways (LMAs) are suggested as a backup for airway management during infant CPR. We therefore compared the utility of the air-Q(®) LMA (air-Q) with that of the Soft Seal(®) LMA (Soft Seal) for infant CPR in an infant manikin.MethodsTwenty-four novice doctors in the anaesthesia department performed insertion and ventilation with air-Q and Soft Seal on an infant manikin with or without chest compression.ResultsTwo doctors failed to insert the Soft Seal without chest compression, while nine failed during chest compression (P<0.05). However, only one doctor failed to insert the air-Q without chest compression, and two doctors failed during chest compression. Insertion time was not significantly increased with chest compression using either device. Insertion time during chest compression was significantly shorter for the air-Q than for the Soft Seal (P<0.05). The visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to evaluate difficulty of use (0mm (extremely easy) to 100mm (extremely difficult)). VAS scores did not change significantly by the addition of chest compression with either device; however, VAS scores during chest compression were significantly higher with Soft Seal than with the air-Q device.ConclusionWe conclude that novice doctors find the air-Q easier to use than Soft Seal for emergency airway management during chest compression in infants, in an infant manikin.Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

14 keywords...

hide…