Advertisement

Prolonged Use of an Extraglottic Airway During Air Medical Transport From a Remote Alaskan Island

      Abstract

      Extraglottic devices (EGDs) are important tools for airway management in the prehospital and transport medicine environment. EGDs may be used as either a primary airway or rescue device depending on the provider skill level or patient circumstances. Although EGDs do not provide a definitive airway, they can facilitate oxygenation and ventilation in select patients. This is particularly important in the remote or austere environment when difficult airways are infrequently encountered. This case report details the prolonged use of an EGD during air medical transport from a rural Alaskan medical clinic to a large academic tertiary receiving facility, with the total time until definitive airway placement of approximately 9 hours. We review the prehospital coordination and evaluation, in-flight management, and successful transfer of care of the patient to the receiving tertiary center for definitive intervention.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Air Medical Journal
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Ritter SC
        • Guyette FX.
        Prehospital pediatric King LT-D use: a pilot study.
        Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011; 15: 401-404
        • Russi CS
        • Miller L
        • Hartley MJ.
        A comparison of the King-LT to endotracheal intubation and Combitube in a simulated difficult airway.
        Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008; 12: 35-41
        • Frascone RJ
        • Russi C
        • Lick C
        • et al.
        Comparison of prehospital insertion success rates and time to insertion between standard endotracheal intubation and a supraglottic airway.
        Resuscitation. 2011; 82: 1529-1536
        • Wang HE
        • Schmicker RH
        • Daya MR
        • et al.
        Effect of a strategy of initial laryngeal tube insertion vs endotracheal intubation on 72-hour survival in adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized clinical trial.
        JAMA. 2018; 320: 769-778
        • Ochs M
        • Vilke GM
        • Chan TC
        • Moats T
        • Buchanan J.
        Successful prehospital airway management by EMT-Ds using the Combitube.
        Prehosp Emerg Care. 2000; 4: 333-337
        • Driver BE
        • Plummer D
        • Heegaard W
        • Reardon RF.
        Tracheal malplacement of the King LT airway may be an important cause of prehospital device failure.
        J Emerg Med. 2016; 51: e133-e135
        • McGlinch BP
        • Martin DP
        • Volcheck GW
        • Carmichael SW.
        Tongue engorgement with prolonged use of the esophageal-tracheal Combitube.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2004; 44: 320-322
        • Vézina MC
        • Trépanier CA
        • Nicole PC
        • Lessard MR.
        Complications associated with the esophageal-tracheal Combitube in the pre-hospital setting.
        Can J Anaesth. 2007; 54: 124-128
        • Segal N
        • Yannopoulos D
        • Mahoney BD
        • et al.
        Impairment of carotid artery blood flow by supraglottic airway use in a swine model of cardiac arrest.
        Resuscitation. 2012; 83: 1025-1030
        • Eismann H
        • Sieg L
        • Otten O
        • Leffler A
        • Palmaers T.
        Impact of the laryngeal tube as supraglottic airway device on blood flow of the internal carotid artery in patients undergoing general anaesthesia.
        Resuscitation. 2019; 138: 141-145
        • Asai T
        • Shange K.
        The laryngeal tube.
        Br J Anaesth. 2005; 95: 729-736