Cricoid pressure facts from
@doctimcook
There’s no RCT evidence it reduces aspiration risk but there’s also no RCT evidence that ANY component of RSI reduces aspiration risk.
Meanwhile, CP does have a reasonable amount of other experimental evidence that it works. No other component of RSI has ANY evidence at all!
The evidence is uncertain
There is logic to its use inasmuch as
-aspiration is a significant complication and efforts to prevent it merit careful examination
-cricoid occludes the upper GI tract (hypopharynx)
-the metrics for correct cricoid are well defined
3 kg
one hand
unable to sustain > 5 mins
-it’s easy to teach (closed 50 ml syringe, compress air from 50-32 ml) achieves good accuracy /-0.5 kg which keeps in effective and safe range
-when applied correctly it has either nil or minimal impact on airway management
-if its causing a problem, take it off and you’ve lot nothing
The biggest challenge is
-teaching it correctly
-correctly identifying cricoid ( we should use more USS)
-misinformation and a view that absence of evidence equals evidence of absence of benefit
Embrace and accept uncertainty
So I use RSI in high risk cases