Phase One of a Global Evaluation of Suction-Based Airway Clearance Devices in Foreign Body Airway Obstructions: A Retrospective Descriptive Analysis

Cody L. Dunne, Selena Osman, Kayla Viguers, Ana Catarina Queiroga, David Szpilman and Amy E. Peden
Additional contact information
Cody L. Dunne: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N2T9, Canada
Selena Osman: Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N4N1, Canada
Kayla Viguers: Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NL A1C5S7, Canada
Ana Catarina Queiroga: International Drowning Researchers’ Alliance, Kuna, ID 83634, USA
David Szpilman: International Drowning Researchers’ Alliance, Kuna, ID 83634, USA
Amy E. Peden: International Drowning Researchers’ Alliance, Kuna, ID 83634, USA

IJERPH, 2022, vol. 19, issue 7, 1-10

Abstract: Background: Choking is a prevalent source of injury and mortality worldwide. Traditional choking interventions, including abdominal thrusts and back blows, have remained the standard of care for decades despite limited published data. Suction-based airway clearance devices (ACDs) are becoming increasingly popular and there is an urgent need to evaluate their role in choking intervention. The aim of this study was to describe the effectiveness (i.e., resolution of choking symptoms) and safety (i.e., adverse events) of identified airway clearance devices interventions to date. Methods: This retrospective descriptive analysis included any individual who self-identified to manufacturers as having used an ACD as a choking intervention prior to 1 July 2021. Records were included if they contained three clinical variables (patient’s age, type of foreign body, and resolution of choking symptoms). Researchers performed data extraction using a standardized form which included patient, situational, and outcome variables. Results: The analysis included 124 non-invasive (LifeVac©) and 61 minimally invasive (Dechoker©) ACD interventions. Median patient age was 40 (LifeVac©, 2–80) and 73 (Dechoker©, 5–84) with extremes of age being most common [<5 years: LifeVac© 37.1%, Dechoker© 23.0%; 80+ years: 27.4%, 37.7%]. Food was the most frequent foreign body (LifeVac© 84.7%, Dechoker© 91.8%). Abdominal thrusts (LifeVac© 37.9%, Dechoker© 31.1%) and back blows (LifeVac© 39.5%, Dechoker© 41.0%) were often co-interventions. Resolution of choking symptoms occurred following use of the ACD in 123 (LifeVac©) and 60 (Dechoker©) cases. Three adverse events (1.6%) were reported: disconnection of bellows/mask during intervention (LifeVac©), a lip laceration (Dechoker©), and an avulsed tooth (Dechoker©). Conclusion: Initial available data has shown ACDs to be promising in the treatment of choking. However, limitations in data collection methods and quality exist. The second phase of this evaluation will be an industry independent, prospective assessment in order to improve data quality, and inform future choking intervention algorithms.

Keywords: foreign body airway obstruction; anti-choking; prehospital; basic life support; resuscitation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2022
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3846/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/19/7/3846/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:19:y:2022:i:7:p:3846-:d:778268

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().