What question did this study set out to answer?

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Laryngeal Tube LT®evo compared to bag-valve-mask and tracheal intubation during simulated resuscitation scenarios.

March 26, 2026Open Access

Performance of the new Laryngeal tube LT®evo during simulated resuscitation: a randomised crossover manikin study

Key Points

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of the Laryngeal Tube LT®evo compared to bag-valve-mask and tracheal intubation during simulated resuscitation scenarios.
Prospective, randomised crossover manikin study
Involves 20 anaesthesiologists with varying experience
Conducted three resuscitation scenarios using BVM, TI, or LT®evo
Each scenario lasted 5 minutes simulating cardiac arrest
Measured total no-flow time, device insertion time, and other ventilation metrics.
LT®evo demonstrated shorter no-flow time compared to bag-valve-mask (RC = 4.00; 95%-CI = 0.13–7.87)
LT®evo had a lower rate of insufficient ventilations (RC = 1.25; 95%CI = 0.44–2.09)
LT®evo allowed higher tidal-volumes (RC = − 66.05; 95%CI = − 124.75– −7.35)
No significant difference in no-flow time when using TI among experienced users (RC = − 2.17; 95%CI = − 6.04–1.70)

Abstract

Effective airway management is essential for high-quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). While tracheal intubation (TI) has traditionally been regarded as the reference technique for advanced airway management, it requires substantial expertise and may prolong no-flow time during CPR. Current European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines recommend the i-gel® as the preferred supraglottic airway (SGA). The newly developed Laryngeal Tube LT®evo (VBM Medizintechnik, Germany) was designed to simplify insertion and improve ventilation performance. This study evaluated its efficacy compared with bag-valve-mask-ventilation (BVM) and tracheal intubation (TI) in a standardized resuscitation scenario. In this prospective, randomised crossover manikin study, 20 anaesthesiologists with varying experience in prehospital and in-hospital Airway management during CPR performed three resuscitation scenarios using BVM, TI, or LT®evo in random order. Each 5-minute scenario simulated a cardiac arrest with initial shockable rhythm and required up to three mandatory defibrillations. The primary endpoint was total no-flow time. Secondary endpoints included device insertion time, time-to-first-effective-ventilation (tidal-volume ≥ 400 mL), and number of insufficient ventilations. All 60 simulations were completed. Compared with LT®evo, BVM produced statistically longer no-flow time (regression coefficient RC = 4.00; 95%-CI = 0.13–7.87), a higher rate of insufficient ventilations (RC = 1.25; 95%CI = 0.44–2.09), and lower tidal-volumes (RC = − 66.05; 95%CI = − 124.75- −7.35). Compared to LT®evo, there was no evidence for a difference in no-flow time for TI (RC = − 2.17; 95%CI = − 6.04–1.70) in experienced users. In this first evaluation of the LT®evo, the device enabled rapid, effective ventilation with minimal interruption of chest compressions. Its ease of use and observed performance characteristics support further clinical investigation as potential alternative SGA for resuscitation.

Bookmark

View Full Paper