Baker P, Webber J. Anaesthesia 2014; 69(8): 928-9
A further response to Adelborg et al (Anaesthesia. 2014 Apr;69(4):343-7), expressing concern at this being a manikin study, and suggesting that the “vital issue” is whether a device is “fit for purpose” in the case of a drowning patient.
Link to abstract
bb582a81-e45e-4fca-88ef-581686589464|1|2.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c
Baker P, Webber J. Anaesth Intensive Care 2011; 39(4): 675-7
Reported failure of an i-gel® and an Ambu® AuraOnceTM to ventilate a drowning victim due to changes in lung physiology following inhalation of water requiring ventilation pressures up to 40cmH20. Authors say that supraglottic airways, thanks to rapid insertion, are recommended for resuscitation as they facilitate the continuation of cardiac compression, however low leak pressures may cause inadequate ventilation and entrainment of air into the stomach of drowning victims.
Abstract text
d65e0a0e-70f6-43db-81c0-e3f3bc947968|0|.0|27604f05-86ad-47ef-9e05-950bb762570c