Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dravid, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Popat, M. T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dravid, R. M.
Right arrow Articles by Popat, M. T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol 84, Issue 3 363-366, Copyright © 2000 by Oxford University Press

ARTICLES

Effect of cricoid pressure on insertion of and ventilation through the cuffed oropharyngeal airway

RM Dravid, P Reed, M Stoneham and MT Popat
Nuffield Department of Anaesthetics, Oxford Radcliffe Hospital, UK.

We have assessed the effect of cricoid pressure on insertion of and ventilation through the cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) in 53 patients, in a double-blind, randomized study. Two anaesthetists assessed adequacy of ventilation in anaesthetized and paralysed patients at the same time but using different methods. The first assessed ventilation clinically, by observing synchronized chest expansion with gentle manual ventilation and the second noted measurements of tidal volume (VT) and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP). Five mask ventilated breaths ('baseline') were assessed as above. Patients were then allocated randomly to receive cricoid pressure (group A, n = 28) or no cricoid pressure (group B, n = 25). Five further mask ventilated breaths ('after manoeuvre') were again assessed. A COPA was then inserted and five further breaths ('after COPA') were assessed. A COPA was inserted at the first attempt in all patients except for one in group A who required two attempts. COPA placement was difficult in one patient in group B who had a small distance between the incisor teeth. Ventilation was clinically 'adequate' in all patients except for one in the cricoid pressure group. There were no significant differences in measured VT or PIP between 'baseline' and 'after manoeuvre' breaths. Significant differences in VT and PIP were found after COPA insertion in the group that received cricoid pressure, with a mean decrease in VT of 108 ml (P = 0.0049) and a mean increase in PIP of 5.2 cm H2O (P = 0.0111).
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
Editorial II: Airway devices: where now and where to?
Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2000; 85(4): 504 - 505.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.