ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Clearing the airway? A pilot cadaveric study of the LifeVac™ device.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparison of negative pressure performance between certified and counterfeit suction-based devices.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Foreign body aspiration (FBA Methods: Fresh cadavers with intact upper airway anatomy were used. Grapes, hot dog slices, and steak cubes were placed at the level of the true vocal folds under video-laryngoscopic guidance. Interventions were performed by a PGY-1 otolaryngology resident and a board-certified head and neck surgeon, following LifeVac™ manufacturer instructions. The primary outcome was successful foreign body removal within four minutes. Secondary outcomes included time to removal and evidence of oropharyngeal trauma. All trials were video recorded for technique verification and injury assessment. Results: Across 21 trials performed on three cadavers, only one successful extraction occurred (1/21, 4.8 %), involving a hot dog segment removed by a PGY-1 resident. One cadaver was edentulous, which resulted in a poor mask seal and ineffective suction. No grapes or steak were successfully extracted. No visible oropharyngeal trauma was identified. Conclusion: In this cadaveric model, LifeVac™ demonstrated limited efficacy, with successful removal occurring in only one instance. It is unclear if the lack of efficacy is due to device design or the limitations of the cadaveric model. Further research in physiologic or clinical settings is warranted.
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.