Dataset Information

Comparison of the MultiViewScope Stylet Scope and the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade for the intubation in normal and difficult pediatric airways: A randomized, crossover, manikin study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Managing difficult pediatric airway is challenging. The MultiViewScope (MVS) Stylet Scope is reported to be useful in difficult pediatric airway. In this randomized crossover study, we compared the effectiveness of the MVS Stylet Scope to a standard direct laryngoscope with Miller #1 blade in simulated normal and difficult airways. METHODS:Fifteen expert anesthesiologists and Fifteen anesthesiology residents participated in the study. Participants were asked to perform intubation with the Airsim Baby manikin first, and then with the Airsim Pierre Robin manikin. Participants in each group used the intubation devices in a randomized order. The primary outcome was the time of successful intubation. The secondary outcomes were the force exerted on the incisors during intubation, Cormack-Lehane scale, the difficulty of intubation. RESULTS:There were no differences between MVS Stylet Scope and Direct laryngoscope in the time of successful intubation by the expert anesthesiologists or the anesthesiology residents in a normal or difficult pediatric airway. MVS Stylet Scope significantly improved the force exerted on the incisors during intubation in the expert anesthesiologists or the anesthesiology residents in a normal or difficult pediatric airway. MVS Stylet Scope significantly improved Cormack-Lehane scale, and the difficulty of intubation with difficult pediatric airway situation in both expert anesthesiologists and anesthesiology residents. CONCLUSIONS:Although less forces on the incisors and improved view of glottis were observed with the MVS Stylet Scope, MVS Stylet Scope did not shorten the time of intubation. The results of this study mean that the MVS Stylet Scope may be a less invasive airway devise than the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade in the pediatric airway management. For the next step, we need to evaluate the MVS Stylet Scope in the real patients as an observational study.

SUBMITTER: Godai K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7425958 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of the MultiViewScope Stylet Scope and the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade for the intubation in normal and difficult pediatric airways: A randomized, crossover, manikin study.

Godai Kohei K Moriyama Takahiro T Kanmura Yuichi Y

PloS one 20200813 8

<h4>Background</h4>Managing difficult pediatric airway is challenging. The MultiViewScope (MVS) Stylet Scope is reported to be useful in difficult pediatric airway. In this randomized crossover study, we compared the effectiveness of the MVS Stylet Scope to a standard direct laryngoscope with Miller #1 blade in simulated normal and difficult airways.<h4>Methods</h4>Fifteen expert anesthesiologists and Fifteen anesthesiology residents participated in the study. Participants were asked to perform ...[more]

PMID: 32790734

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVideo laryngoscopy is an effective tool in the management of difficult pediatric airway. However, evidence to guide the choice of the most appropriate video laryngoscope (VL) for airway management in pediatric patients with Pierre Robin syndrome (PRS) is insufficient. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the Glidescope® Core™ with a hyperangulated blade, the C-MAC® with a nonangulated Miller blade (C-MAC® Miller) and a conventional Miller laryngoscope when used by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience in simulated Pierre Robin sequence.MethodsForty-three anesthetists with limited experience and forty-three anesthetists with extensive experience participated in our randomized crossover manikin trial. Each performed endotracheal intubation with the Glidescope® Core™ with a hyperangulated blade, the C-MAC® with a Miller blade and the conventional Miller laryngoscope. "Time to intubate" was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were "time to vocal cords", "time to ventilate", overall success rate, number of intubation attempts and optimization maneuvers, Cormack-Lehane score, severity of dental trauma and subjective impressions.ResultsBoth hyperangulated and nonangulated VLs provided superior intubation conditions. The Glidescope® Core™ enabled the best glottic view, caused the least dental trauma and significantly decreased the "time to vocal cords". However, the failure rate of intubation was 14% with the Glidescope® Core™, 4.7% with the Miller laryngoscope and only 2.3% with the C-MAC® Miller when used by anesthetists with extensive previous experience. In addition, the "time to intubate", the "time to ventilate" and the number of optimization maneuvers were significantly increased using the Glidescope® Core™. In the hands of anesthetists with limited previous experience, the failure rate was 11.6% with the Glidescope® Core™ and 7% with the Miller laryngoscope. Using the C-MAC® Miller, the overall success rate increased to 100%. No differences in the "time to intubate" or "time to ventilate" were observed.ConclusionsThe nonangulated C-MAC® Miller facilitated correct placement of the endotracheal tube and showed the highest overall success rate. Our results therefore suggest that the C-MAC® Miller could be beneficial and may contribute to increased safety in the airway management of infants with PRS when used by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience.

Project description:Difficult airways can be managed with a range of devices, with video laryngoscopes (VLs) being the most common. The C-MAC® Video-Stylet (VS; Karl-Storz Germany), a hybrid between a flexible and a rigid intubation endoscope, has been recently introduced. The aim of this study is to investigate the performance of the VS compared to a VL (C-MAC Macintosh blade, Karl-Storz Germany) with regards to the learning curve for each device and its ability to manage a simulated difficult airway manikin. This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, crossover study involving twenty-one anesthesia residents performing intubations on a Bill 1™ (VBM, Germany) airway manikin model. After a standardized introduction, six randomized attempts with VL and VS were performed on the manikin. This was followed by intubation in a simulated difficult airway (cervical collar and inflated tongue) with both devices in a randomized fashion. The primary end-point of this study was the total time to intubation. All continuous variables were expressed as the median [interquartile range] and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. A 2-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post hoc test was used to compare both devices at each trial. All reported p values are two sided. The median total time to intubation on a simulated difficult airway was faster with the VS compared to VL (17 [13.5-25] sec vs 23 [18.5-26.5] sec, respectively; 95% CI; P = 0.031). Additionally, on a normal airway manikin, the VS has a comparable learning curve to the VL. In this manikin-based study, the novel VS was comparable to the VL in terms of learning curve in a normal airway. In a simulated difficult airway, the total time to intubation, though likely not clinically relevant, was faster with the VS to the VL. However, given the above findings, this study justifies further human clinical trials with the VS to see if similar benefits-faster time to intubation and similar learning curve to VL-are replicated clinically.

Project description:Importance:The tracheal tube introducer, known as the bougie, is typically used to aid tracheal intubation in poor laryngoscopic views or after intubation attempts fail. The effect of routine bougie use on first-attempt intubation success is unclear. Objective:To compare first attempt intubation success facilitated by the bougie vs the endotracheal tube?+?stylet. Design, Setting, and Patients:The Bougie Use in Emergency Airway Management (BEAM) trial was a randomized clinical trial conducted from September 2016 through August 2017 in the emergency department at Hennepin County Medical Center, an urban, academic department in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where emergency physicians perform all endotracheal intubations. Included patients were 18 years and older who were consecutively admitted to the emergency department and underwent emergency orotracheal intubation with a Macintosh laryngoscope blade for respiratory arrest, difficulty breathing, or airway protection. Interventions:Patients were randomly assigned to undergo the initial intubation attempt facilitated by bougie (n?=?381) or endotracheal tube?+?stylet (n?=?376). Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was first-attempt intubation success in patients with at least 1 difficult airway characteristic (body fluids obscuring the laryngeal view, airway obstruction or edema, obesity, short neck, small mandible, large tongue, facial trauma, or the need for cervical spine immobilization). Secondary outcomes were first-attempt success in all patients, first-attempt intubation success without hypoxemia, first-attempt duration, esophageal intubation, and hypoxemia. Results:Among 757 patients who were randomized (mean age, 46 years; women, 230 [30%]), 757 patients (100%) completed the trial. Among the 380 patients with at least 1 difficult airway characteristic, first-attempt intubation success was higher in the bougie group (96%) than in the endotracheal tube?+?stylet group (82%) (absolute between-group difference, 14% [95% CI, 8% to 20%]). Among all patients, first-attempt intubation success in the bougie group (98%) was higher than the endotracheal tube?+?stylet group (87%) (absolute difference, 11% [95% CI, 7% to 14%]). The median duration of the first intubation attempt (38 seconds vs 36 seconds) and the incidence of hypoxemia (13% vs 14%) did not differ significantly between the bougie and endotracheal tube?+?stylet groups. Conclusions and Relevance:In this emergency department, use of a bougie compared with an endotracheal tube?+?stylet resulted in significantly higher first-attempt intubation success among patients undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation. However, these findings should be considered provisional until the generalizability is assessed in other institutions and settings. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02902146.

Dataset Information

Comparison of the MultiViewScope Stylet Scope and the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade for the intubation in normal and difficult pediatric airways: A randomized, crossover, manikin study.

Publications

Comparison of the MultiViewScope Stylet Scope and the direct laryngoscope with the Miller blade for the intubation in normal and difficult pediatric airways: A randomized, crossover, manikin study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets