Search

Background: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE)., Methods: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers., Results: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction . Airway management plays an essential role in anaesthesia practice, during both elective and urgent surgery procedures and emergency medicine., Aim: The aim of the study was to compare Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC), McGrath, and TruView PCD in 5 separate airway management scenarios., Methods: This prospective cross-over simulation study involved 93 paramedics. All paramedics performed intubation using direct laryngoscope (MAC), McGrath, and TruView PCD video laryngoscopes. The study was performed in 5 different scenarios: (A) normal airway, (B) tongue oedema, (C) pharyngeal obstruction, (D) cervical collar stabilization with tongue oedema, and (E) cervical collar stabilization with pharyngeal obstruction., Results: In scenario A, the success rate was 99% with MAC, 100% with McGrath, and 94% with PCD. Intubation time was 17 s (IQR: 16-21) for MAC, 18 s (IQR: 16-21) for McGrath, and 27 s (IQR: 23-34) for PCD. In scenario B, the success rate was 61% with MAC, 97% with McGrath, and 97% with PCD ( p < 0.001). Intubation time was 44 s (IQR: 24-46) for MAC, 22 s (IQR: 20-27) for McGrath, and 39 s (IQR: 30-57) for PCD. In scenario C, the success rate with MAC was 74%, 97% with McGrath, and 72% with PCD ( p < 0.001). Intubation time was 44 s (IQR: 24-46) for MAC, 22 s (IQR: 20-27) for McGrath, and 39 s (IQR: 30-57) for PCD. In scenario C, the success rate with MAC was 74%, 97% with McGrath, and 72% with PCD ( p < 0.001). Intubation time was 44 s (IQR: 24-46) for MAC, 22 s (IQR: 20-27) for McGrath, and 39 s (IQR: 30-57) for PCD. In scenario C, the success rate with MAC was 74%, 97% with McGrath, and 72% with PCD ( p < 0.001). Intubation time was 44 s (IQR: 24-46) for MAC, 22 s (IQR: 20-27) for McGrath, and 39 s (IQR: 30-57) for PCD. In scenario C, the success rate with MAC was 74%, 97% with McGrath, and 72% with PCD (., Conclusions: The McGrath video laryngoscope proved better than Truview PCD and direct intubation with Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of success rate, duration of first intubation attempt, number of intubation attempts, Cormack-Lehane grade, percentage of glottis opening (POGO score), number of optimization manoeuvres, severity of dental compression, and ease of use., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper., (Copyright © 2020 Kurt Ruetzler et al.)

Background: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) can be challenging, especially in life-threatening situations such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Videolaryngoscopes aim to ease ETI, but effort is still widely discussed. This study intended to investigate 2 different airway devices regarding the success rate of ETI during ongoing chest compressions., Methods: This randomized, cross-over, multi-center manikin trial included 85 experienced paramedics actively working in the emergency medicine service. After a standardized training session, all paramedics underwent 3 airway scenarios using both, direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh blade and videolaryngoscope (the UEScope): normal airway without chest compressions, normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, and difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. The primary outcome was successful ETI, defined as successful placement of the endotracheal tube within the manikin's trachea. Secondary outcomes were number of intubation attempts, time to successful ETI, time to best glottis view, best percent of glottic opening, best glottic view score (Cormack and Lehane), occurrence of dental trauma, ease of use, and willing to reuse in real-life situations., Results: The UEScope provided a better glottis visualization, and higher first pass intubation success rate compared to direct laryngoscopy in all 3 scenarios. The overall intubation success was higher, and the intubation time was shorter with the UEScope in scenario B and scenario C, but was comparable in scenario A. Dental compression occurred less often using the UEScope and paramedics rated intubation using the UEScope easier compared to direct laryngoscopy in all 3 airway scenarios., Conclusion: In simulated CPR scenarios, intubation with the UEScope resulted in a better glottis visualization, a higher intubation success, and a shorter intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). Moreover, in situations where the airway is difficult for ETI especially by the paramedic, the UEScope would be a better choice than the MAC. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in real-life patients.

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare C-MAC videolaryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for intubation in simulated cervical spine immobilization conditions., Methods: The study was designed as a prospective randomized crossover manikin trial. 70 paramedics with <5years of medical experience participated in the study. The paramedics attempted to intubate manikins in 3 airway scenarios: normal airway without cervical immobilization (Scenario A); manual inline cervical immobilization (Scenario B); cervical immobilization using cervical extraction collar (Scenario C)., Results: Scenario A: Nearly all participants performed successful intubations with both MAC and C-MAC on the first attempt (95.7% MAC vs. 100% C-MAC), with similar intubation times (16.5s MAC vs. 18s C-MAC). Scenario B: The results with C-MAC were significantly better than those with MAC (p<0.05) for the time of intubation (23 s MAC vs. 19 s C-MAC), success of the first intubation attempt (88.6% MAC vs. 100% C-MAC), Cormack-Lehane grade, POGO score, severity of dental compression, device difficulty score, and preferred airway device. Scenario C: The results with C-MAC were significantly better than those with MAC (p<0.05) for all the analysed variables: success of the first attempt (51.4% MAC vs. 100% C-MAC), overall success rate, intubation time (27 s MAC vs. 20.5 s C-MAC), Cormack-Lehane grade, POGO score, dental compression, device difficulty score and the preferred airway device., Conclusion: The C-MAC videolaryngoscope is an excellent alternative to the MAC laryngoscope for intubating manikins with cervical spine immobilization., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)