Laryngeal Masks in Neonatal Resuscitation-A Narrative Review of Updates 2022

Children (Basel). 2022 May 17;9(5):733. doi: 10.3390/children9050733.

Abstract

Positive pressure ventilation (PPV) is crucial to neonatal cardiopulmonary resuscitation because respiratory failure precedes cardiac failure in newborns affected by perinatal asphyxia. Prolonged ineffective PPV could lead to a need for advanced resuscitation such as intubation, chest compression, and epinephrine. Every 30 s delay in initiation of PPV increased the risk of death or morbidity by 16%. The most effective interface for providing PPV in the early phases of resuscitation is still unclear. Laryngeal masks (LMs) are supraglottic airway devices that provide less invasive and relatively stable airway access without the need for laryngoscopy which have been studied as an alternative to face masks and endotracheal tubes in the initial stages of neonatal resuscitation. A meta-analysis found that LM is a safe and more effective alternative to face mask ventilation in neonatal resuscitation. LM is recommended as an alternative secondary airway device for the resuscitation of infants > 34 weeks by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation. It is adopted by various national neonatal resuscitation guidelines across the globe. Recent good-quality randomized trials have enhanced our understanding of the utility of laryngeal masks in low-resource settings. Nevertheless, LM is underutilized due to its variable availability in delivery rooms, providers’ limited experience, insufficient training, preference for endotracheal tube, and lack of awareness.

Keywords: infant; laryngeal masks; neonate; resuscitation.

Publication types

  • Review

Grants and funding

M.R. is supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH); Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) R03 HD10406 & Wildermuth Foundation research grant. The content is solely the authors’ responsibility and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH or AAP NRP. The funding agencies had no role in the design of this manuscript.