The efficacy of two commercially available devices for airway foreign body relief: A cadaver study

Apoorva Ramaswamy,Aaron Done,Roberto Solis,Mayuri Srikanth,Lindsay Olinde,Peter Belafsky
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/lio2.1057
IF: 2.542
2023-04-22
Laryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology
Abstract: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. 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. 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. 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. 4 In this study, we test the efficacy of the LifeVac and DeChoker, two commercially available antichoking suction devices, to relieve foreign body aspiration. The devices were tested in a fresh cadaver model and found to show minimal to no success in removing the foreign bodies. We conclude these devices should not replace current International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's recommendations for choking. Additional evidence is necessary to support the usage of these devices in a time‐critical event.
otorhinolaryngology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?