Search

Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy of hyperangulated video laryngoscopy (HAVL) versus standard geometry video laryngoscopy (SGVL) in the simulated prehospital environment using a manikin. There is consensus that video laryngoscopy (VL) can be very useful in the emergency department when difficult intubations are predicted. Emergency medical service (EMS) providers are also often faced with difficult, rapidly deteriorating airway management situations that not only involve patient and operator factors but also include challenging unique environmental factors, such as nonoptimized positions in transport vehicles (eg, helicopters and ambulances) or at ground level or entrapped positions. To our knowledge, there has never been a study purposefully investigating the efficacy of hyperangulated geometry versus standard geometry VL techniques in the prehospital environment., Methods: A single-center, randomized controlled crossover trial was performed using attending physician helicopter EMS providers. Physicians were randomized to perform 5 HAVL or SGVL intubations followed by the subsequent technique. Intubations were performed on ground level and then repeated in the helicopter with the first location also randomized. A manikin airway management trainer was used to simulate intubation in each environment. The time to intubation (primary outcome) as well as first-pass success and the Cormack-Lehane view were recorded for each attempt. Qualitative data were also obtained for physician preference and perceived difficulty., Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the time to intubation with HAVL versus SGVL (ground: 15.02 vs. 14.88 seconds, P = .86; helicopter: 16.11 vs. 16.14 seconds, P = .93). First-pass success was 100% for both techniques in both scenarios. More Grade 1 views were obtained with HAVL (147/150 vs. 134/150). Moreover, most physicians preferred HAVL overall and felt that HAVL required less force (9/15 grounded manikin and 10/15 helicopter manikin) and led to the best chance for first-pass success (11/15 grounded manikin and 10/15 helicopter manikin)., Conclusion: The results of this study are limited because of the static and highly favorable anatomy of a manikin versus the variability and often difficult anatomy of individual patients. Our results suggest that both techniques are efficacious when the patient is both on the ground or in the helicopter, although provider preference does seem to vary., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)