The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver study
Abstract Objective Foreign body aspiration events are frequent in young children and in the geriatric population. They may result in several complications such as hypoxia, edema, cardiac arrest, and death. Recently, two commercially available devices, the LifeVac and DeChoker, have entered the marke...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2023-06-01
|
| Series: | Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1057 |
| _version_ | 1797800327921008640 |
|---|---|
| author | Apoorva Ramaswamy Aaron Done Roberto Solis Mayuri Srikanth Lindsay Olinde Peter Belafsky |
| author_facet | Apoorva Ramaswamy Aaron Done Roberto Solis Mayuri Srikanth Lindsay Olinde Peter Belafsky |
| author_sort | Apoorva Ramaswamy |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Objective Foreign body aspiration events are frequent in young children and in the geriatric population. They may result in several complications such as hypoxia, edema, cardiac arrest, and death. Recently, two commercially available devices, the LifeVac and DeChoker, have entered the market with the claim of relieving foreign body aspiration. Both devices are portable, nonpowered, suction devices that are being considered for use in large public spaces such as schools, airports, and malls despite previous studies detailing variable efficacy. In this study, we aim to contribute further data on the safety and efficacy of these devices through a fresh cadaver model. Methods Commonly aspirated foods of three different sizes (saltines, grapes, and cashews) were placed at the level of the true vocal folds in a fresh cadaver. Three participants performed two trials with each food and device. Device use was performed to manufacturer specifications. Results The DeChoker resulted in gross injury to the tongue and failed to remove the obstruction in all trials. LifeVac was successful in removing the barium‐moistened saltines but failed to remove all other foreign bodies. Both devices applied significant pressure to the tongue. Conclusion With the exception of the LifeVac removing saltine crackers, all trials were entirely unsuccessful in relieving foreign body aspiration. Additionally, both devices may cause significant pressure and injury to the oral cavity in a clinical setting. We conclude bystanders should continue to follow International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's guidelines on resuscitation to aid with relieving foreign body aspiration. Level of Evidence 4 |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T04:32:30Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-eaf110547a954fc6985e2c8e2cff172a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2378-8038 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T04:32:30Z |
| publishDate | 2023-06-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology |
| spelling | doaj.art-eaf110547a954fc6985e2c8e2cff172a2023-06-19T10:16:46ZengWileyLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology2378-80382023-06-018370871110.1002/lio2.1057The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver studyApoorva Ramaswamy0Aaron Done1Roberto Solis2Mayuri Srikanth3Lindsay Olinde4Peter Belafsky5Department of Otolaryngology, Center for Voice and Swallow University of California, Davis Sacramento California USADepartment of Otolaryngology, Center for Voice and Swallow University of California, Davis Sacramento California USADepartment of Otolaryngology, Center for Voice and Swallow University of California, Davis Sacramento California USADepartment of Otolaryngology The Ohio State University Columbus Ohio USADepartment of Otolaryngology, Center for Voice and Swallow University of California, Davis Sacramento California USADepartment of Otolaryngology, Center for Voice and Swallow University of California, Davis Sacramento California USAAbstract Objective Foreign body aspiration events are frequent in young children and in the geriatric population. They may result in several complications such as hypoxia, edema, cardiac arrest, and death. Recently, two commercially available devices, the LifeVac and DeChoker, have entered the market with the claim of relieving foreign body aspiration. Both devices are portable, nonpowered, suction devices that are being considered for use in large public spaces such as schools, airports, and malls despite previous studies detailing variable efficacy. In this study, we aim to contribute further data on the safety and efficacy of these devices through a fresh cadaver model. Methods Commonly aspirated foods of three different sizes (saltines, grapes, and cashews) were placed at the level of the true vocal folds in a fresh cadaver. Three participants performed two trials with each food and device. Device use was performed to manufacturer specifications. Results The DeChoker resulted in gross injury to the tongue and failed to remove the obstruction in all trials. LifeVac was successful in removing the barium‐moistened saltines but failed to remove all other foreign bodies. Both devices applied significant pressure to the tongue. Conclusion With the exception of the LifeVac removing saltine crackers, all trials were entirely unsuccessful in relieving foreign body aspiration. Additionally, both devices may cause significant pressure and injury to the oral cavity in a clinical setting. We conclude bystanders should continue to follow International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's guidelines on resuscitation to aid with relieving foreign body aspiration. Level of Evidence 4https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1057airway obstructionaspirationchokingcommercial deviceforeign body aspiration |
| spellingShingle | Apoorva Ramaswamy Aaron Done Roberto Solis Mayuri Srikanth Lindsay Olinde Peter Belafsky The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver study Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology airway obstruction aspiration choking commercial device foreign body aspiration |
| title | The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver study |
| title_full | The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver study |
| title_fullStr | The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver study |
| title_full_unstemmed | The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver study |
| title_short | The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver study |
| title_sort | efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief a cadaver study |
| topic | airway obstruction aspiration choking commercial device foreign body aspiration |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1057 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT apoorvaramaswamy theefficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT aarondone theefficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT robertosolis theefficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT mayurisrikanth theefficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT lindsayolinde theefficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT peterbelafsky theefficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT apoorvaramaswamy efficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT aarondone efficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT robertosolis efficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT mayurisrikanth efficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT lindsayolinde efficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy AT peterbelafsky efficacyoftwocommerciallyavailabledevicesforairwayforeignbodyreliefacadaverstudy |