E-O technique is superior to E-C technique in manikins during single person bag mask ventilation performed by novices.

Conventional E-C technique of mask holding is unreliable during single person bag mask ventilation (BMV) due mainly to leak around the mask and inexperience of the persons. In this manikin study, conventional E-C technique was compared with E-O technique during single person BMV both with experienced (n = 50) and novice (n = 50) volunteers. The E-O technique involved encircling the mask neck with the web between thumb and index finger while the other digits provided chin lift. Two independent observers recorded the chest expansion as 1 (nil), 2 (minimal), 3 (moderate) and 4 (good). For analysis ideal and average chest expansion were clubbed as acceptable. E-C technique in experienced volunteers showed acceptable results in 49 (31 + 18) occasions, while with novices acceptable is 39 (17 + 22). With E-O technique, expansion was acceptable in 47 (38 + 9) experienced volunteers, and acceptable in 46 (32 + 14) novices. (P = 0.003). In cross over analysis for experienced volunteers, similar chest expansion was obtained on 30 occasions with both techniques, E-C better than E-O on 8 and E-O better than E-C on 12 occasions. Novices had comparable results on 17 occasions, E-C better than E-O on 8 and E-O better than E-C on 25 occasions (P = 0.016). The conventionally taught E-C technique of single person BMV provides acceptable chest expansion on most occasions with experienced operators than novices. Novices should use E-O technique as the first choice for single person BMV. Both techniques may be used interchangeably when one fails.

Umesh's intubation detector (UID) for rapid and reliable identification of tracheal intubation by novices in anaesthetised, paralysed adult patients.

Oesophageal intubation can lead to life threatening complications if left undetected. Several devices and techniques are available to confirm tracheal intubation and for early detection of oesophageal intubation. This study was carried out to evaluate the utility of the Umesh's intubation detector device for rapid and reliable differentiation of tracheal from oesophageal intubation by novice users. In this prospective, double blind and randomised study, 100 healthy patients undergoing general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation received two identical size endotracheal tubes; one inserted into trachea and the other into the oesophagus. The Umesh's intubation detector was connected to one of the tubes randomly and a novice was asked to observe for inflation of the reservoir bag of the device while two chest compressions of approximately one inch each were given to the patient. Out of the total 100 tracheal intubations, 96 were correctly identified while the observers could not clearly conclude whether the tube was in trachea or oesophagus in the other four patients. Out of the total 100 oesophageal intubations, 99 were correctly identified. There were no complications related to the study. Umesh's intubation detector device can be used by novices for rapid and reliable differentiation of tracheal from oesophageal intubation in healthy adult patients.

Validation of the new intubation detector device: a manikin study.

This study was done to validate the utility of Umesh's intubation detector in detection of tracheal or oesophageal intubation in manikin using volunteers with different levels of experience in tracheal intubation (including novices). The Sim Man II, (Laerdal Medical AS, Norway) manikin was used. Two cuffed tracheal tubes of size 6.5 mm ID were used. One was passed into the trachea and the other into oesophagus. The device was connected to one of the two tubes as per randomisation table and three high quality chest compressions were performed. Each volunteer participated in the study twice. Their opinion regarding the tube position (in trachea or oesophagus or could not determine) was noted. A total of 50 volunteers participated in the study. Eleven of them had not observed intubation (novice), 29 had either only observed or had experience of <10 tracheal intubations (less experienced) and 10 had experience of >10 intubations or >1 year experience in tracheal intubation (experienced). Out of a total 100 performances, 99 were correctly identified. On one instance, a tube placed in trachea was incorrectly interpreted to be in the oesophagus by a novice. Umesh's intubation detector helps in rapid and reliable confirmation of tracheal intubation in manikin irrespective of the experience level of the assessor in tracheal intubation.