Dataset Information

Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Szarpak L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8731221 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 is a high-risk procedure that should be performed with personal protective equipment (PPE). The influence of PPE on operator's performance during tracheal intubation remains unclear.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of simulation studies to evaluate the influence of wearing PPE as compared to standard uniform regarding time-to-intubation (TTI) and success rate. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to device used and operator's experience.ResultsThe TTI was prolonged when wearing PPE (eight studies): Standard Mean Difference (SMD) -0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [-0.75, -0.34],p < 0.0001. Subgroup analyses according to device used showed similar findings (direct laryngoscopy, SMD -0.63 [-0.88, -0.38], p < 0.0001; videolaryngoscopy, SMD -0.39 [-0.75, -0.02], p = 0.04). Considering the operator's experience, non-anesthesiologists had prolonged TTI (SMD -0.75 [-0.98, -0.52], p < 0.0001) while the analysis on anesthesiologists did not show significant differences (SMD -0.25 [-0.51, 0.01], p = 0.06). The success rate of tracheal intubation was not influenced by PPE: Risk Ratio (RR) 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]; p = 0.12). Subgroup analyses according to device demonstrated similar results (direct laryngoscopy, RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.07], p = 0.15, videolaryngoscopy, RR 1.01 [0.98, 1.04], p = 0.52). Wearing PPE had a trend towards negative influence on success rate in non-anesthesiologists (RR 1.05 [1.00, 1.10], p = 0.05), but not in anesthesiologists (RR 1.00 [0.98, 1.03], p = 0.84). Trial-sequential analyses for TTI and success rate indicated robustness of both results.ConclusionsUnder simulated conditions, wearing PPE delays the TTI as compared to dressing standard uniform, with no influence on the success rate. However, certainty of evidence is very low. Performing tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy seems influenced to a greater extent as compared to videolaryngoscopy. Similarly, wearing PPE affects more the non-anesthesiologists subgroup as compared to anesthesiologists.

Project description:IntroductionEarly 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 methodsForty-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.ResultsIn 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.ConclusionAll 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.