Acute cardiac care & resuscitationMeta-analysis
Airway management with a supraglottic airway device during resuscitation by basic life support providers: a systematic review
- systematic review
- Narrative synthesis followed Synthesis without meta-analysis guidelines
- certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE
Authors' conclusion
A review of current evidence reported no evidence of benefit of SGA compared with BVM use by BLS-trained providers. Considerable heterogeneity was observed among the studies, and it was not possible to compare outcomes between SGA type. Data are lacking for first rescuers and first responders.
Study context
- Population
- Basic Life Support (BLS) providers during adult in-hospital or out-of-hospital cardiac arreststudies met inclusion criteria (3 randomised trials, 13 observational studies) · randomised trials 3 · observational studies 13
- Participants
- 16 participants
- Comparison
- SGA use compared with bag-valve-mask ventilation by BLS providers
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
Relative risk
1.28
95% CI 0.46–3.55
Further pooled results
Neurological outcomes, survival at discharge or 30 days, and return of spontaneous circulation (observational studies)
- inconsistent findings and no clear benefit of SGA use
- very low-certainty evidence
Chest compression fraction
- One randomised trial suggested a higher chest compression fraction with SGAs
Records screened
- records screened
- 11,310
- Meta-analysis was not feasible for observational studies due to substantial heterogeneity
Parts of this Brief are withheld: the automatic checks could not confirm them against the abstract.
Original publication
Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it