Cargando…
Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model
INTRODUCTION: We compared the efficacy of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ with inline suction to CMAC with traditional suction device in cadaveric models simulating difficult airways, using media mimicking pulmonary edema and vomit. METHODS: This was a prospective, cohort study in which we invited emergency me...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine
2014
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25035766 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2014.3.21646 |
_version_ | 1782326727846920192 |
---|---|
author | Lipe, Demis N. Lindstrom, Randi Tauferner, Dustin Mitchell, Christopher Moffett, Peter |
author_facet | Lipe, Demis N. Lindstrom, Randi Tauferner, Dustin Mitchell, Christopher Moffett, Peter |
author_sort | Lipe, Demis N. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: We compared the efficacy of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ with inline suction to CMAC with traditional suction device in cadaveric models simulating difficult airways, using media mimicking pulmonary edema and vomit. METHODS: This was a prospective, cohort study in which we invited emergency medicine faculty and residents to participate. Each participant intubated 2 cadavers (one with simulated pulmonary edema and one with simulated vomit), using CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Thirty emergency medicine providers performed 4 total intubations each in a crossover trial comparing the CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Two intubations were performed with simulated vomit and two with simulated pulmonary edema. The primary outcome was time to successful intubation; and the secondary outcome was proportion of successful intubation. RESULTS: The median time to successful intubation using the CMAC with inline suction versus traditional suction in the pulmonary edema group was 29s and 30s respectively (p=0.54). In the vomit simulation, the median time to successful intubation was 40s using the CMAC with inline suction and 41s using the CMAC with traditional suction (p=0.70). There were no significant differences in time to successful intubation between the 2 devices. Similarly, the proportions of successful intubation were also not statistically significant between the 2 devices. The proportions of successful intubations using the inline suction were 96.7% and 73.3%, for the pulmonary edema and vomit groups, respectively. Additionally using the handheld suction device, the proportions for the pulmonary edema and vomit group were 100% and 66.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: CMAC with inline suction was no different than CMAC with traditional suction and was associated with no statistically significant differences in median time to intubation or proportion of successful intubations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4100866 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2014 |
publisher | Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-41008662014-07-17 Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model Lipe, Demis N. Lindstrom, Randi Tauferner, Dustin Mitchell, Christopher Moffett, Peter West J Emerg Med Technology in Emergency Care INTRODUCTION: We compared the efficacy of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ with inline suction to CMAC with traditional suction device in cadaveric models simulating difficult airways, using media mimicking pulmonary edema and vomit. METHODS: This was a prospective, cohort study in which we invited emergency medicine faculty and residents to participate. Each participant intubated 2 cadavers (one with simulated pulmonary edema and one with simulated vomit), using CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Thirty emergency medicine providers performed 4 total intubations each in a crossover trial comparing the CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Two intubations were performed with simulated vomit and two with simulated pulmonary edema. The primary outcome was time to successful intubation; and the secondary outcome was proportion of successful intubation. RESULTS: The median time to successful intubation using the CMAC with inline suction versus traditional suction in the pulmonary edema group was 29s and 30s respectively (p=0.54). In the vomit simulation, the median time to successful intubation was 40s using the CMAC with inline suction and 41s using the CMAC with traditional suction (p=0.70). There were no significant differences in time to successful intubation between the 2 devices. Similarly, the proportions of successful intubation were also not statistically significant between the 2 devices. The proportions of successful intubations using the inline suction were 96.7% and 73.3%, for the pulmonary edema and vomit groups, respectively. Additionally using the handheld suction device, the proportions for the pulmonary edema and vomit group were 100% and 66.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: CMAC with inline suction was no different than CMAC with traditional suction and was associated with no statistically significant differences in median time to intubation or proportion of successful intubations. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine 2014-07 /pmc/articles/PMC4100866/ /pubmed/25035766 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2014.3.21646 Text en Copyright © 2014 the authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Technology in Emergency Care Lipe, Demis N. Lindstrom, Randi Tauferner, Dustin Mitchell, Christopher Moffett, Peter Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model |
title | Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model |
title_full | Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model |
title_short | Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model |
title_sort | evaluation of karl storz cmac tip™ device versus traditional airway suction in a cadaver model |
topic | Technology in Emergency Care |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4100866/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25035766 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2014.3.21646 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT lipedemisn evaluationofkarlstorzcmactipdeviceversustraditionalairwaysuctioninacadavermodel AT lindstromrandi evaluationofkarlstorzcmactipdeviceversustraditionalairwaysuctioninacadavermodel AT taufernerdustin evaluationofkarlstorzcmactipdeviceversustraditionalairwaysuctioninacadavermodel AT mitchellchristopher evaluationofkarlstorzcmactipdeviceversustraditionalairwaysuctioninacadavermodel AT moffettpeter evaluationofkarlstorzcmactipdeviceversustraditionalairwaysuctioninacadavermodel |