ArticleJAMA network open2023
Comparative Effectiveness of an Artificial Air Pocket Device to Delay Asphyxiation in Supine Individuals Critically Buried in Avalanche Debris.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Emergency care for avalanche buried patients - a narrative review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- Avalanche Survival Rates in Switzerland, 1981-2020.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Prevalence of airway patency and air pocket in critically buried avalanche victims - a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Approximately 70% of individuals critically buried in avalanche debris die within 35 minutes as a result of asphyxial cardiac arrest. An artificial air-pocket device (AAPD) that separates inhaled air from exhaled air may delay the onset of severe hypoxemia and eventual asphyxia during snow burial. Objective: To investigate the efficacy of a new AAPD during snow burial in a supine position. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness trial was performed in winter 2016 with data analysis in November 2016 and November 2022. Each trial used a simulated critical avalanche burial scenario, in which a trough was dug in a snow pile and an additional air pocket of 0.5 L volume was punched into the lateral wall for each control trial. All participants were buried in a supine position. Trials could be voluntarily terminated at any time, with a maximum length of 60 minutes; trials were automatically terminated if the participant's peripheral oxygen saturation (Spo2) dropped to less than 84%. Exposures: Each participant conducted 2 trials, one in which they breathed into the AAPD (intervention trial) and the other in which they breathed into the prepared air pocket (control trial). Main Outcomes and Measures: Measurements included Spo2, cerebral oxygenation, ventilatory parameters, respiratory gas concentrations, and visual-analogue scales. Kaplan-Meier survival curves and rank test for matched survival data were used to analyze the total burial time in each trial. Results: A total of 13 volunteers (9 men; mean [SD] age, 33 [8] years) were exposed to the intervention and control trials. Intervention trials were terminated less often (2 of 13 trials) as a result of hypoxemia than control trials (11 of 12 trials). Similarly, survival curves showed a longer duration of burial in the intervention compared with the control trials for the time to reach an Spo2 less than 84% (rank test for matched survival data: P = .003). The intervention trials, compared with the control trials, also had slower rates of decrease in fraction of inspired oxygen (mean [SD] rate, -0.8 [0.4] %/min vs -2.2 [1.2] %/min) and of increase in fraction of inspired carbon dioxide (mean [SD] rate, 0.5 [0.3] %/min vs 1.4 [0.6] %/min) and expired ventilation per minute (mean [SD] rate, 0.5 [1.0] L/min2 vs 3.9 [2.6] L/min2). Conclusions and Relevance: This comparative effectiveness trial found that the new AAPD was associated with delaying the development of hypoxemia and hypercapnia in supine participants in a critical burial scenario. Use of the AAPD may allow a longer burial time before asphyxial cardiac arrest, which might allow longer times for successful rescue by companions or by prehospital emergency medical services.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.