Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Apr 18;(2):CD003314.

Laryngeal mask airway versus bag-mask ventilation or endotracheal intubation for neonatal resuscitation.

Author information

1
Department of Pediatrics, Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, USA, 699 West Drive, RR 208, James Whitcomb Riley Hospital for Children, Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-5119, USA. ajgrein@iupui.edu

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Providing effective positive pressure ventilation is the single most important component of successful neonatal resuscitation. Ventilation is frequently initiated with a manual resuscitation bag and face-mask (BMV) followed by endotracheal intubation (ETT) if depression continues. These techniques may be difficult to perform successfully resulting in prolonged resuscitation or severe neonatal depression. The laryngeal mask airway (LMA) may achieve initial ventilation and successful resuscitation faster than a bag-mask device or endotracheal intubation.

OBJECTIVES:

Among newborns requiring positive pressure ventilation for resuscitation, is effective ventilation and successful resuscitation achieved faster with the LMA compared with either BMV or ETT?

SEARCH STRATEGY:

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2004), MEDLINE (1966-November 2004), Pre-MEDLINE (November 15, 2004), CINAHL 1982-November 2004), reference lists of published trials, and Society for Pediatric Research abstracts were searched. Experts were contacted for additional references.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

Randomised and quasi-randomised trials

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

Two reviewers independently evaluated studies, assessed methodologic quality, and extracted data using the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group criteria. Categorical treatment effects were described as relative risks and risk differences and continuous treatment effects were described as the mean difference. There were insufficient data to perform pooled analyses.

MAIN RESULTS:

No eligible studies compared the LMA with BMV. One small randomised controlled trial comparing the LMA with ETT when BMV had been unsuccessful was included. There was no statistically significant difference between the LMA and ETT with the exception of a clinically insignificant difference in time to complete insertion of the device favouring the ETT.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:

The LMA can achieve effective ventilation during neonatal resuscitation in a time-frame consistent with current guidelines. There is no evidence to evaluate the relative efficacy and safety of the LMA compared with BMV as the primary airway device. A single, small randomised controlled trial found no clinically significant difference between the LMA and ETT when BMV was unsuccessful. Case series and case reports suggest that the LMA can provide an effective rescue airway during resuscitation if both BMV and ETT have been unsuccessful. A well-designed randomised controlled trial comparing the LMA with BMV during neonatal resuscitation is warranted.

PMID:
15846656
DOI:
10.1002/14651858.CD003314.pub2
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Wiley
Loading ...
Support Center