Back to Search Start Over

Comparison of Direct and Video Laryngoscopes during Different Airway Scenarios Performed by Experienced Paramedics: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Study.

Authors :
Ruetzler K
Szarpak L
Smereka J
Dabrowski M
Bialka S
Mosteller L
Szarpak A
Ludwin K
Wojewodzka-Zelezniakowicz M
Ladny JR
Source :
BioMed research international [Biomed Res Int] 2020 Feb 18; Vol. 2020, pp. 5382739. Date of Electronic Publication: 2020 Feb 18 (Print Publication: 2020).
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

Introduction . Airway management plays an essential role in anaesthesia practice, during both elective and urgent surgery procedures and emergency medicine.<br />Aim: The aim of the study was to compare Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC), McGrath, and TruView PCD in 5 separate airway management scenarios.<br />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.<br />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 (.<br />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.<br />Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.<br /> (Copyright © 2020 Kurt Ruetzler et al.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
2314-6141
Volume :
2020
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
BioMed research international
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
32149114
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/5382739