A 2-year prospective evaluation of airway clearance devices in foreign body airway obstructions

• Autor(a) principal: Dunne, CL
• Data de Publicação: 2023
• Outros Autores: Viguers, K, Osman, S, Queiroga, AC, Szpilman, D, Peden, AE
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
• Texto Completo: https://hdl.handle.net/10216/156293

Aim: To collect, analyze and report the first prospective, industry-independent, data on airway clearance devices as novel foreign body airway obstruction interventions. Methods: We recruited adult airway clearance device users between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2023 using a centralized website and email follow-up. The data collection tool captured patient, responder, situation, and outcome variables. Multi-step respondent validation occurred using electronic and geolocation verification, a random selection follow-up process, and physician review of all submitted cases. Results: We recruited 186 airway clearance device users (LifeVac©:157 [84.4%]; Dechoker©:29 [15.6%]). LifeVac© was the last intervention before foreign body airway obstruction relief in 151 of 157 cases. Of these, 150 survived to discharge. A basic life support intervention was used before LifeVac© in 119 cases, including the 6 cases where LifeVac© also failed. We identified two adverse events using LifeVac© (perioral bruising), while we could not ascertain whether another 7 were due to the foreign body or LifeVac© (3 = airway edema; 3 = oropharyngeal abrasions; 1 = esophageal perforation). Dechoker© was the last intervention before obstruction relief in 27 of 29 cases and all cases survived. A basic life support intervention was used before Dechoker© in 21 cases, including both where Dechoker© also failed. We identified one adverse event using Dechoker© (oropharyngeal abrasions). Conclusion: Within these cases, airway clearance devices appear to be effective at relieving foreign body airway obstructions. However, this data should be considered preliminary and hypothesis generating due to several limitations. We urge the resuscitation community to proactively evaluate airway clearance devices to ensure the public remains updated with best practices. © 2023 The Author(s)