This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

J. Philip Smith, MD; Balazs I. Bodai, MD
University of California Sacramento

JAMA. 1984;251(16):2085-2086.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—

We agree with Dr Don Michael that the study by Schofferman et al¹ is inadequate to evaluate the EOA. This study was performed in a controlled situation under physician direction in the emergency room. Consequently, the report did not evaluate the capability of the EOA for prehospital ventilation. Two studies have documented that prehospital ventilation with the EOA, as measured by arterial blood gases, is inadequate.^2,3

One study used EMT II rescuers and the other paramedics, so training of rescuers does not appear to be important. Both studies indicated that difficulty in maintaining an effective mouth seal with the EOA contributed to the poor ventilatory results.^2,3

Facility of EOA insertion is a problem. The device offers little or no improvement over properly trained rescuers using endotracheal intubation. In a recent article in THE JOURNAL, Jacobs et al reported that the endotracheal tube was successfully placed . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?