ArticleInternational journal of emergency medicine2026
Performance of the new Laryngeal Tube LT
Article in International journal of emergency medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEffective airway management is essential for high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). While tracheal intubation (TI) has traditionally been regarded as the reference technique for advanced airway management, it requires substantial expertise and may prolong no-flow time during CPR. Current European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines recommend the i-gel® as the preferred supraglottic airway (SGA). The newly developed Laryngeal Tube LT®evo (VBM Medizintechnik, Germany) was designed to simplify insertion and improve ventilation performance. This study evaluated its efficacy compared with bag-valve-mask-ventilation (BVM) and tracheal intubation (TI) in a standardized resuscitation scenario.
methodsIn this prospective, randomised crossover manikin study, 20 anaesthesiologists with varying experience in prehospital and in-hospital Airway management during CPR performed three resuscitation scenarios using BVM, TI, or LT®evo in random order. Each 5-minute scenario simulated a cardiac arrest with initial shockable rhythm and required up to three mandatory defibrillations. The primary endpoint was total no-flow time. Secondary endpoints included device insertion time, time-to-first-effective-ventilation (tidal-volume ≥ 400 mL), and number of insufficient ventilations.
resultsAll 60 simulations were completed. Compared with LT®evo, BVM produced statistically longer no-flow time (regression coefficient [RC] = 4.00; 95%-CI = 0.13–7.87), a higher rate of insufficient ventilations (RC = 1.25; 95%CI = 0.44–2.09), and lower tidal-volumes (RC = − 66.05; 95%CI = − 124.75- −7.35). Compared to LT®evo, there was no evidence for a difference in no-flow time for TI (RC = − 2.17; 95%CI = − 6.04–1.70) in experienced users.
conclusionIn this first evaluation of the LT®evo, the device enabled rapid, effective ventilation with minimal interruption of chest compressions. Its ease of use and observed performance characteristics support further clinical investigation as potential alternative SGA for resuscitation.
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.