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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lipe, Demis N., Lindstrom, Randi, Tauferner, Dustin, Mitchell, Christopher, Moffett, Peter
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