Front-of-neck airway rescue with impalpable anatomy during a simulated cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate scenario: scalpel–finger–cannula versus scalpel–finger–bougie in a sheep model

Front-of-neck airway rescue in a cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate (CICO) scenario with impalpable anatomy is particularly challenging. Several techniques have been described based on a midline vertical neck incision with subsequent finger dissection, followed by either a cannula or scalpel puncture...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:British journal of anaesthesia : BJA 2020-08, Vol.125 (2), p.184-191
Hauptverfasser: Heard, Andrew, Gordon, Helen, Douglas, Scott, Grainger, Nicholas, Avis, Hans, Vlaskovsky, Philip, Toner, Andrew, Thomas, Betty, Kennedy, Chris, Perlman, Hannah, Fox, Joanna, Tarrant, Kelly, De Silva, Natasha, Eakins, Patrick, Patel, Prabir, Fitzpatrick, Samuel, Bright, Shona, O'Keefe, Sinead, Do, Thy, Staff, Veterinary
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Front-of-neck airway rescue in a cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate (CICO) scenario with impalpable anatomy is particularly challenging. Several techniques have been described based on a midline vertical neck incision with subsequent finger dissection, followed by either a cannula or scalpel puncture of the now palpated airway. We explored whether the speed of rescue oxygenation differs between these techniques. In a high-fidelity simulation of a CICO scenario in anaesthetised Merino sheep with impalpable front-of-neck anatomy, 35 consecutive eligible participants undergoing airway training performed scalpel–finger–cannula and scalpel–finger–bougie in a random order. The primary outcome was time from airway palpation to first oxygen delivery. Data, were analysed with Cox proportional hazards. Scalpel–finger–cannula was associated with shorter time to first oxygen delivery on univariate (hazard ratio [HR]=11.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.14–25.13; P
ISSN:0007-0912
1471-6771
DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2020.04.067