Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41079548›Full record

ArticleResuscitation plus2025

Clearing the airway? A pilot cadaveric study of the LifeVac™ device.

Thomas L Haupt, Lisa Chionis, Kevin H Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Thomas L HauptDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, Oakland, CA, USA.
Lisa ChionisDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, Oakland, CA, USA.
Kevin H WangDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Kaiser Permanente Oakland Medical Center, Oakland, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Airway obstructionAspirationChokingForeign body aspirationResuscitation

Identifiers

PMID41079548
PMCPMC12509167

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.