Search

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: Securing the airway and enabling adequate oxygenation and ventilation is essential during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of the study was to evaluate the success rate of blind intubation via the I-Gel and the Air-Q compared with direct laryngoscopy guided endotracheal intubation by inexperienced physician and to measure time to successful intubation., Methods: The study was designed as a randomized, cross-over simulation study. A total of 134 physicians, from specialties other than Anesthesia or Emergency Medicine, who considered themselves skilled in endotracheal intubation but who have never used any kind of supraglottic airway device performed blind intubation via the I-Gel and Air-Q and direct laryngoscopy guided endotracheal intubation in 3 randomized scenarios: normal airway without chest compression during intubation attempt; normal airway with continuous chest compression during intubation attempt; difficult airway with continuous chest compression., Results: Scenario A: Success rate with initial intubation attempt was 72% for endotracheal intubation, 75% in Air-Q, and 81% in I-Gel. Time to endotracheal intubation and ease of intubation was comparable with all 3 airway devices used. Scenario B: Success rate with the initial intubation attempt was 42% for endotracheal intubation, compared with 75% in Air-Q and 80% in I-Gel. Time for endotracheal intubation was significantly prolonged in endotracheal intubation (42 seconds, 35-49), compared with Air-Q (21 seconds, 18-32) and I-Gel (19 seconds, 17-27). Scenario C: The success rate with the initial intubation attempt was 23% in endotracheal intubation, compared with 65% in Air-Q and 74% in I-Gel. Time to intubation was comparable with both supraglottic airway devices (20 vs 22 seconds) but was significantly shorter compared with endotracheal intubation (50 seconds, P < .001)., Conclusions: Less to moderately experienced providers are able to perform endotracheal intubation in easy airways but fail during ongoing chest compressions and simulated difficult airway. Consequently, less to moderately experienced providers should refrain from endotracheal intubation during ongoing chest compressions during CPR and in expected difficult airways. Supraglottic airway devices are reliable alternatives and blind intubation through these devices is a valuable airway management strategy.

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.)

Background: Immobilization of the cervical spine is indicated in all patients with the potential risk of any cervical spine injury. Airway management in these patients is challenging and direct laryngoscopy is the standard of care. Videolaryngoscopes like the ET-View were introduced into clinical practice to provide better airway visualization and ease intubation. The ET-View is essentially a conventional endotracheal tube, but is equipped with a miniature camera on the tip. The ET-View has not been investigated in patients with immobilized cervical spine so far. The aim was to evaluate the performance of the VivaSight SL compared with Macintosh when performed in patients with immobilized cervical spine by unexperienced physicians., Methods: This was prospective, randomized, cross-over manikin trial. 50 novice physicians were randomly assigned to intubate a manikin in three airway scenarios including a normal airway and two cervical immobilization techniques. Overall and first intubation attempt success rate, time to intubation, dental compression and airway visualization according to the Cormack&Lehane graduation were assessed., Results: All physicians were able to intubate the manikin in all scenarios using the ETView, whereas direct laryngoscopy failed in 16 % with immobilized cervical spine using the patriot cervical extraction collar. First intubation attempt success rate was higher and airway visualization was better in all three scenarios using the ET-View compared to direct laryngoscopy., Conclusion: The ET-View offered much better 62 airway visualization and provided higher overall and first intubation attempt success rates. Therefore, the ET-View is a valuable alternative in patients with difficult intubation due to immobilized cervical spine. Further clinical trials are indicated to confirm these findings., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02733536.