No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: This experimental study compared the effect of compression-to-ventilation (CV) ratios of 15:1, 15:2, and 30:2 on hemodynamics and resuscitation outcome in a canine model of a simulated, witnessed ventricular fibrillation (VF) cardiac arrest.Methods: Thirty healthy dogs, irrespective of species (mean ± SD, 19.2 ± 2.2 kg), were used in this study. A VF arrest was induced. The dogs received cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and were divided into three groups based on the applied CV ratios of 15:1, 15:2, and 30:2. After 1 minute of untreated VF, 4 minutes of basic life support (BLS) was performed. At the end of the 4 minutes, the dogs were defibrillated with an automatic external defibrillator (AED) and advanced cardiac life support (ACLS) efforts were continued for 10 minutes or until restoration of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) was attained, whichever came first.Results: None of the hemodynamic parameters, and arterial oxygen profiles was significantly different between the three groups during BLS-and ACLS-CPR. Eight dogs (80%) from each group achieved ROSC during BLS and ACLS. The survival rate was not different between the three groups. In the 15:1 and 30:2 groups, the number of compressions delivered over 1 minute were significantly greater than in the 15:2 group (73.1 ± 8.1 and 69.0 ± 6.9 to 56.3 ± 6.8; p < 0.01). The time for ventilation during which compressions were stopped at each minute was significantly lower in the 15:1 and 30:2 groups than in the 15:2 group (15.4 ± 3.9 and 17.1 ± 2.7 to 25.2 ± 2.6 sec ⁄ min; p < 0.01). Conclusions:In a canine model of witnessed VF using a simulated scenario, CPR with three CV ratios, 15:1, 15:2, and 30:2, did not result in any differences in hemodynamics, arterial oxygen profiles, and resuscitation outcome among the three groups. CPR with a CV ratio of 15:1 provided comparable chest compressions and shorter pauses for ventilation between each cycle compared to a CV ratio of 30:2. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2008; 15:183-189 ª 2008 by the Society for Academic Emergency MedicineKeywords: cardiopulmonary resuscitation, chest compression, hemodynamics T he optimal compression-to-ventilation (CV) ratio for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) still remains controversial. Although the CV ratio of 30:2 was recommended in the American Heart Association 2005 guidelines for CPR and emergency cardiovascular care, further validation of this guideline is needed. 1Interruption of chest compressions during CPR is detrimental to maintaining the coronary perfusion pressure (CPP), and the controversy over CV ratio is focused on how to minimize interruption of chest compressions during CPR. A higher CV ratio may deliver more compressions per minute and decrease interruptions for ventilation.2 However, a higher CV ratio or continuous compressions might also be associated with an increase in rescuer fatigue and ⁄ or a decrease in compression quality.3-5 Chest compression-only CPR might be as good as CPR with ventilation for a successful outcome, 6

Objectives. Early airway management is very important for severely ill patients. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of face to face intubation in four different types of laryngoscopes (Macintosh laryngoscope, Pentax airway scope (AWS), Glidescope video laryngoscope (GVL), and C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC)). Method. Ninety-five nurses and emergency medical technicians were trained to use the AWS, C-MAC, GVL and Macintosh laryngoscope with standard airway trainer manikin and face to face intubation. We compared VCET (vocal cord exposure time), tube pass time, 1st ventilation time, VCET to tube pass time, tube pass time to 1st ventilation time, and POGO (percentage of glottis opening) score. In addition, we compared success rate according to the number of attempts and complications. Result. VCET was similar among all laryngoscopes and POGO score was higher in AWS. AWS and Macintosh blade were faster than GVL and C-MAC in total intubation time. Face to face intubation success rate was lower in GVL than other laryngoscopes. Conclusion. AWS and Macintosh were favorable laryngoscopes in face to face intubation. GVL had disadvantage performing face to face intubation.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Reducing the time to diagnose COVID-19 helps to manage insufficient isolation-bed resources and adequately accommodate critically ill patients. There is currently no alternative method to real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), which requires 40 cycles to diagnose COVID-19. We propose a deep learning (DL) model to improve the speed of COVID-19 RT-PCR diagnosis. We developed and tested a DL model using the long short-term memory method with a dataset of fluorescence values measured in each cycle of 5810 RT-PCR tests. Among the DL models developed here, the diagnostic performance of the 21st model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC), sensitivity, and specificity of 84.55%, 93.33%, and 75.72%, respectively. The diagnostic performance of the 24th model showed an AUROC, sensitivity, and specificity of 91.27%, 90.00%, and 92.54%, respectively.

ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare intubation performance between blind intubation through supraglottic airway devices and direct laryngoscopy by novices under manikin simulation. We hypothesized that the intubation time by novices using supraglottic airway devices was superior to that with the Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL).MethodsA prospective, randomized crossover study was conducted with 95 participants, to evaluate i-gel, air-Q, LMA Fastrach, and MCL devices. Primary outcomes were the intubation time and the success rate for intubation.ResultsThe i-gel showed the shortest insertion and tube passing time among the four devices; the i-gel and air-Q also showed the shortest total intubation time (all P<0.0083; i-gel vs. air-Q, P=0.03). The i-gel and MCL showed the highest cumulative success rate (all P<0.0083; i-gel vs. MCL, P=0.12).ConclusionBlind intubation through the i-gel showed almost equal intubation performance compared to direct laryngoscopy.