Airway Management Feasibility Study (REVIVE-Airways)

ISRCTN ISRCTN18528625
DOI https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18528625
Secondary identifying numbers 11962
Submission date
24/05/2012
Registration date
24/05/2012
Last edited
21/01/2016
Recruitment status
No longer recruiting
Overall study status
Completed
Condition category
Injury, Occupational Diseases, Poisoning
Prospectively registered
Protocol
Statistical analysis plan
Results
Individual participant data

Plain English summary of protocol

Not provided at time of registration

Contact information

Dr Sarah Voss
Scientific

Faculty of Health & Life Sciences
Glenside Campus
Blackberry Hill
Bristol
BS16 1DD
United Kingdom

Study information

Study designRandomised interventional trial
Primary study designInterventional
Secondary study designRandomised controlled trial
Study setting(s)Hospital
Study typeTreatment
Participant information sheet Not available in web format, please use the contact details below to request a patient information sheet
Scientific titleRandomised comparison of the effectiveness of the Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme, i-gel and current practice in the initial airway management of pre-hospital cardiac arrest: a feasibility study (REVIVE-Airways)
Study acronymREVIVE
Study objectivesCardiac arrest occurs when the heart suddenly stops beating, and is one of the most extreme medical emergencies. Outcomes remain poor with most patients not surviving. Effective treatments for cardiac arrest are limited and represent a major unmet health need. The main treatment is cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), which is a combination of rescue breathing and chest compressions. Prompt and effective CPR is essential to prevent damage to the brain and other organs. Minimising interruptions of continuous chest compressions improves survival.

Current evidence supports a change in rescue breathing. Historically, placing a breathing tube in the windpipe (tracheal intubation) was viewed as the best pre-hospital airway management in cardiac arrest, but we now know that attempting intubation can lead to significant complications and prolonged interruptions in chest compressions. As a result, national recommendations advocate using newer airway devices (supraglottic airway devices: SADs). These are quicker to insert and cause minimal interruption to chest compressions. However the best type of SAD and their effectiveness in comparison to current practice is unknown.

This research study is a preliminary investigation to determine whether our proposed design will allow us to compare the two most promising SADs (i-gel and LMAS) with current practice during pre-hospital cardiac arrest. This will be done by dividing paramedics working in Great Western Ambulance Service, and who agree to take part, into three groups. Each group will be given structured education on CPR and rescue breathing. One group will be taught to use the i-gel, one group the LMAS and one group will continue as usual. If this research design works, and produces useful results, we will proceed to a large scale study to determine whether one of these approaches improves patient survival. This will shape future guidelines and benefit cardiac arrest patients in the UK and internationally.

More details can be found at http://public.ukcrn.org.uk/Search/StudyDetail.aspx?StudyID=11962
Ethics approval(s)First MREC 31/10/2011 ref: 11/EE/0407
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studiedInjuries and Emergencies
Interventioni-gel Arm, Patients attended by a paramedic who has been randomised to this arm will receive resuscitation according to the Resuscitation Council (UK) and JRCALC Advanced Life Support Guidelines, with the exception that the i-gel supra-glottic airway device will be used initially to manage the airway. All standard advanced life support interventions will be provided including drug administration, defibrillation and chest compressions as required.; LMAS Arm, Patients attended by a paramedic who has been randomised to this arm will receive resuscitation according to the Resuscitation Council (UK) and JRCALC Advanced Life Support Guidelines, with the exception that the Laryngeal Mask Airway Supreme (LMAS) supra-glottic airway device will be used initially to manage the airway. All standard advanced life support interventions will be provided including drug administration, defibrillation and chest compressions as required.

Usual Practice Arm, Patients attended by a paramedic who has been randomised to this arm will receive resuscitation according to the Resuscitation Council (UK) and JRCALC Advanced Life Support Guidelines. All standard advanced life support interventions will be provided including drug administration, defibrillation and chest compressions as required.; Follow Up Length: 3 month(s)
Intervention typeOther
Primary outcome measureAssess if it is possible to conduct a full-scale study
Secondary outcome measuresNo secondary outcome measures
Overall study start date01/03/2012
Completion date28/02/2013

Eligibility

Participant type(s)Patient
Age groupAdult
Lower age limit18 Years
SexBoth
Target number of participantsPlanned Sample Size: 534; UK Sample Size: 534; Description: The sample size of 534 comprises 150 paramedics and 384 patients
Key inclusion criteriaParamedics:
Working in Great Western Ambulance Service and consenting to participate

Patients:
1. Have had a cardiac arrest in the pre-hospital setting
2. Attempted resuscitation is appropriate according to standard guidelines
3. Aged 18 years or older
4. Target Gender: Male & Female
Key exclusion criteriaPatients:
1. Less than 18 years old
2. Estimated weight is less than 50 kg
3. Mouth opening is less than 2 cm
4. The latter two exclusions have been applied because the SGAs evaluated in this trial are not designed for use in patients with low body weight or significantly reduced mouth opening.
Date of first enrolment01/03/2012
Date of final enrolment28/02/2013

Locations

Countries of recruitment

  • England
  • United Kingdom

Study participating centre

Faculty of Health & Life Sciences
Bristol
BS16 1DD
United Kingdom

Sponsor information

Funders

Funder type

Government

National Institute for Health Research
Government organisation / National government
Alternative name(s)
National Institute for Health Research, NIHR Research, NIHRresearch, NIHR - National Institute for Health Research, NIHR (The National Institute for Health and Care Research), NIHR
Location
United Kingdom

Results and Publications

Intention to publish date
Individual participant data (IPD) Intention to shareNo
IPD sharing plan summaryNot provided at time of registration
Publication and dissemination planNot provided at time of registration
IPD sharing plan

Study outputs

Output type Details Date created Date added Peer reviewed? Patient-facing?
Protocol article protocol 13/02/2013 Yes No
Results article results 01/02/2016 Yes No

Editorial Notes

21/01/2016: Publication reference added.