Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A systematic review on the effectiveness of anti-choking suction devices and identification of research gaps.
Dunne, C L; Peden, A E; Queiroga, A C; Gomez Gonzalez, C; Valesco, B; Szpilman, D.
Afiliación
  • Dunne CL; Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada; Medical Committee, International Life Saving Federation, Belgium. Electronic address: cody.dunne@ucalgary.ca.
  • Peden AE; School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
  • Queiroga AC; EPI Unit, Instituto de Saúde Pública da Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal.
  • Gomez Gonzalez C; CLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
  • Valesco B; Office of Public Health Preparedness, Maui District Health, Hawaii State Health Department, Wailuku, Hawaii, United States.
  • Szpilman D; Medical Committee, International Life Saving Federation, Belgium; Brazilian Lifesaving Society (SOBRASA), Barra da Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Drowning Resuscitation Centre, Fire Department of Rio de Janeiro (CBMERJ), Brazil.
Resuscitation ; 153: 219-226, 2020 08.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32114068
AIM: Despite an obstructed airway (choking) being a relatively preventable injury, it has a considerable mortality burden globally, with increasing incidence. Given new technologies in choking management, this systematic review aimed to assess current literature on the effectiveness of anti-choking suction devices at relieving obstructions. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, SCOPUS, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus and the English websites of the devices were searched on September 23, 2019. Studies were included if they reported the anti-choking devices' dislodgment success rate (primary outcome) or associated adverse events (secondary outcome). Articles, conference abstracts or technical reports were included if peer reviewed. Certainty of evidence was assessed in accordance with GRADE. RESULTS: Five studies satisfied the inclusion criteria for this review. Two studies (40%) reported findings of a single centre mannequin trial, one (20%) of a single centre cadaveric trial, and two (40%) were case series. Cohen's Kappa for the first and second round of screening was 0.904 and 0.674 respectively. Although several devices have been manufactured worldwide, the LifeVac© has been most extensively studied, with a combined dislodgement success rate of 94.3% on first attempt. However, certainty of evidence for the primary outcome was evaluated as very low. CONCLUSIONS: There are many weaknesses in the available data and few unbiased trials that test the effectiveness of anti-choking suction devices resulting in insufficient evidence to support or discourage their use. Practitioners should continue to adhere to guidelines authored by local resuscitation authorities which align with ILCOR recommendations.
Asunto(s)
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Obstrucción de las Vías Aéreas Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Resuscitation Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Irlanda
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Asunto principal: Obstrucción de las Vías Aéreas Tipo de estudio: Diagnostic_studies / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Límite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: Resuscitation Año: 2020 Tipo del documento: Article Pais de publicación: Irlanda