Dataset Information

Comparison of VividTrac, King Vision and Macintosh laryngoscopes in normal and difficult airways during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation among novices

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Early endotracheal intubation improves neurological outcomes in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, although cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initially carried out by personnel with limited experience in a significant proportion of cases. Videolaryngoscopes might decrease the number of attempts and time needed, especially among novices. We sought to compare videolaryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopes in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenarios.

Materials and methods

Forty-four medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students executed endotracheal intubation with the King Vision®, Macintosh and VividTrac® laryngoscopes, on a cardiopulmonary resuscitation trainer in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma and user satisfaction.

Results

In the normal airway scenario, significantly shorter intubation times were achieved using the King Vision® than the Macintosh laryngoscope. In the difficult airway scenario, we found that the VividTrac® was superior to the King Vision® and Macintosh laryngoscopes in the laryngoscopy time. In both scenarios, we noted no difference in the first-attempt success rate, but the best view of the glottis and dental trauma, esophageal intubation and bougie use were more frequent with the Macintosh laryngoscope than with the videolaryngoscopes. The shortest tube insertion times were achieved using the King Vision® in both scenarios.

Conclusion

All providers achieved successful intubation within three attempts, but we found no device superior in any of our scenarios regarding the first-attempt success rate. The King Vision® was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope in the intubation time in the normal airway scenario and noninferior in the difficult airway scenario for novice users. We noted significantly less esophageal intubation using the videolaryngoscopes than using the Macintosh laryngoscope in both scenarios. Based on our results, the KingVision® might be recommended over the VividTrac® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for further evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Keresztes D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8601572 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEndotracheal 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionIn 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.

Project description:BackgroundKing Vision and McGrath MAC video laryngoscopes (VLs) are increasingly used. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of nasotracheal intubation in patients with predicted difficult intubations using non-channeled King Vision VL, McGrath MAC VL or Macintosh laryngoscope by experienced intubators.MethodsNinety nine ASA I or II adult patients, scheduled for oral maxillofacial surgeries with El-Ganzouri risk index 1-7 were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to intubate with one of three laryngoscopes (non-channeled King Vision, McGrath MAC and Macintosh). The intubators were experienced with more than 100 successful nasotracheal intubations using each device. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes included first success rate, time required for viewing the glottis, Cormack-Lehane grade of glottis view, the number of assist maneuvers, hemodynamic responses, the subjective evaluating of sensations of performances and associated complications.ResultsThe intubation time of King Vision and McGrath group was comparable (37.6 ± 7.3 s vs. 35.4 ± 8.8 s) and both were shorter than Macintosh group (46.8 ± 10.4 s, p < 0.001). Both King Vision and McGrath groups had a 100% first attempt success rate, significantly higher than Macintosh group (85%, p < 0.05). The laryngoscopy time was comparable between King Vision and McGrath group (16.7 ± 5.5 s vs. 15.6 ± 6.3 s) and was shorter than Macintosh group (22.8 ± 7.2 s, p < 0.05) also. Compared with Macintosh laryngoscope, Glottis view was obviously improved when exposed with either non-channeled King Vision or McGrath MAC VL (p < 0.001), and assist maneuvers required were reduced (p < 0.001). The maximum fluctuations of MAP were significantly attenuated in VL groups (47.7 ± 12.5 mmHg and 45.1 ± 10.3 mmHg vs. 54.9 ± 10.2 mmHg, p < 0.05 and p < 0.01). Most device insertions were graded as excellent in McGrath group, followed by Macintosh and King Vision group (p = 0.0014). The tube advancements were easier in VLs compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.001). Sore throat was found more frequent in Macintosh group compared with King Vision group (p < 0.05).ConclusionsNon-channeled King Vision and McGrath MAC VLs were comparable and both devices facilitated nasotracheal intubation in managing predicted difficult intubations compared with Macintosh laryngoscope.Trial registrationClinicalTrials registration number NCT03126344 . Registered on April 24, 2017.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In pre-hospital emergency care, video laryngoscopes (VLs) with disposable blades are preferably used due to hygienic reasons. However, there is limited existing data on the use of VLs with disposable blades by emergency medical staff. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of four different VLs with disposable blades and the conventional standard Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by anesthetists with extensive previous experience and paramedics with little previous experience in endotracheal intubation (ETI) in a simulated difficult airway. METHODS:Fifty-eight anesthetists and fifty-four paramedics participated in our randomized crossover manikin trial. Each performed ETI with the new Glidescope® Go™, the Dahlhausen VL, the King Vision™, the I-View™ and the Macintosh 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 compression and subjective impressions. RESULTS:The Glidescope® Go™, the Dahlhausen VL and the King Vision™ provided superior intubation conditions in both groups without affecting the number of intubation attempts or the time required for successful intubation. When used by anesthetists with extensive experience in ETI, the use of VLs did not affect the overall success rate. In the hands of paramedics with little previous experience in ETI, the failure rate with the Macintosh laryngoscope (14.8%) decreased to 3.7% using the Glidescope® Go™ and the Dahlhausen VL. Despite the advantages of hyperangulated video laryngoscopes, the I-View™ performed worst. CONCLUSIONS:VLs with hyperangulated blades facilitated ETI in both groups and decreased the failure rate by an absolute 11.1% when used by paramedics with little previous experience in ETI. Our results therefore suggest that hyperangulated VLs could be beneficial and might be the method of choice in comparable settings, especially for emergency medical staff with less experience in ETI.