Trial reportPediatrics international : official journal of the Japan Pediatric Society
Rapid Airway Placement Without Pausing Chest Compressions: Supraglottic Airway Versus Endotracheal Intubation.
Trial report in Pediatrics international : official journal of the Japan Pediatric Society. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare supraglottic airway device (i-gel) placement versus endotracheal intubation during neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and to assess whether ongoing chest compressions affect success or procedure time in a manikin simulation.
methodsWe conducted a randomized crossover neonatal resuscitation simulation for pediatric and junior residents at a single tertiary hospital. A term 3-kg infant scenario required positive-pressure ventilation and chest compressions. Participants performed 15 cycles of CPR, placed an advanced airway, and then continued CPR for 15 cycles. Each participant completed four conditions: endotracheal intubation with and without chest-compression interruption, and i-gel placement with and without interruption. Outcomes were success rate and procedure time (from device pickup to ventilation).
resultsTwelve residents participated. Endotracheal intubation success rates were 92% (11/12) without interruption and 83% (10/12) with interruption; median procedure times were 16.5 s (range 13-84) and 16 s (11-24), respectively. i-gel placement succeeded in 100% (12/12) in both conditions and was faster: median 7.5 s (6-11) without interruption and 7 s (6-10) with interruption. In paired comparisons, i-gel was significantly faster than intubation in both conditions (paired Wilcoxon p < 0.01), whereas success rates did not differ significantly (McNemar exact p > = 0.50).
conclusionsIn this neonatal manikin simulation, i-gel placement enabled earlier initiation of ventilation than endotracheal intubation and remained consistently successful and rapid even during ongoing chest compressions. Chest-compression interruption did not significantly change intubation success or time in this small sample.
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.