Cargando…

Comparison of Preloaded Bougie versus Standard Bougie Technique for Endotracheal Intubation in a Cadaveric Model

INTRODUCTION: We compared intubating with a preloaded bougie (PB) against standard bougie technique in terms of success rates, time to successful intubation and provider preference on a cadaveric airway model. METHODS: In this prospective, crossover study, healthcare providers intubated a cadaver us...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Baker, Jay B., Maskell, Kevin F., Matlock, Aaron G., Walsh, Ryan M., Skinner, Carl G.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26265978
http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.4.22857
_version_ 1782384956358524928
author Baker, Jay B.
Maskell, Kevin F.
Matlock, Aaron G.
Walsh, Ryan M.
Skinner, Carl G.
author_facet Baker, Jay B.
Maskell, Kevin F.
Matlock, Aaron G.
Walsh, Ryan M.
Skinner, Carl G.
author_sort Baker, Jay B.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: We compared intubating with a preloaded bougie (PB) against standard bougie technique in terms of success rates, time to successful intubation and provider preference on a cadaveric airway model. METHODS: In this prospective, crossover study, healthcare providers intubated a cadaver using the PB technique and the standard bougie technique. Participants were randomly assigned to start with either technique. Following standardized training and practice, procedural success and time for each technique was recorded for each participant. Subsequently, participants were asked to rate their perceived ease of intubation on a visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 (1=difficult and 10=easy) and to select which technique they preferred. RESULTS: 47 participants with variable experience intubating were enrolled at an emergency medicine intern airway course. The success rate of all groups for both techniques was equal (95.7%). The range of times to completion for the standard bougie technique was 16.0–70.2 seconds, with a mean time of 29.7 seconds. The range of times to completion for the PB technique was 15.7–110.9 seconds, with a mean time of 29.4 seconds. There was a non-significant difference of 0.3 seconds (95% confidence interval −2.8 to 3.4 seconds) between the two techniques. Participants rated the relative ease of intubation as 7.3/10 for the standard technique and 7.6/10 for the preloaded technique (p=0.53, 95% confidence interval of the difference −0.97 to 0.50). Thirty of 47 participants subjectively preferred the PB technique (p=0.039). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in success or time to intubation between standard bougie and PB techniques. The majority of participants in this study preferred the PB technique. Until a clear and clinically significant difference is found between these techniques, emergency airway operators should feel confident in using the technique with which they are most comfortable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4530924
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45309242015-08-11 Comparison of Preloaded Bougie versus Standard Bougie Technique for Endotracheal Intubation in a Cadaveric Model Baker, Jay B. Maskell, Kevin F. Matlock, Aaron G. Walsh, Ryan M. Skinner, Carl G. West J Emerg Med Treatment Protocol Assessment INTRODUCTION: We compared intubating with a preloaded bougie (PB) against standard bougie technique in terms of success rates, time to successful intubation and provider preference on a cadaveric airway model. METHODS: In this prospective, crossover study, healthcare providers intubated a cadaver using the PB technique and the standard bougie technique. Participants were randomly assigned to start with either technique. Following standardized training and practice, procedural success and time for each technique was recorded for each participant. Subsequently, participants were asked to rate their perceived ease of intubation on a visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 (1=difficult and 10=easy) and to select which technique they preferred. RESULTS: 47 participants with variable experience intubating were enrolled at an emergency medicine intern airway course. The success rate of all groups for both techniques was equal (95.7%). The range of times to completion for the standard bougie technique was 16.0–70.2 seconds, with a mean time of 29.7 seconds. The range of times to completion for the PB technique was 15.7–110.9 seconds, with a mean time of 29.4 seconds. There was a non-significant difference of 0.3 seconds (95% confidence interval −2.8 to 3.4 seconds) between the two techniques. Participants rated the relative ease of intubation as 7.3/10 for the standard technique and 7.6/10 for the preloaded technique (p=0.53, 95% confidence interval of the difference −0.97 to 0.50). Thirty of 47 participants subjectively preferred the PB technique (p=0.039). CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in success or time to intubation between standard bougie and PB techniques. The majority of participants in this study preferred the PB technique. Until a clear and clinically significant difference is found between these techniques, emergency airway operators should feel confident in using the technique with which they are most comfortable. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine 2015-07 2015-06-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4530924/ /pubmed/26265978 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.4.22857 Text en Copyright © 2015 the authors. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/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/4.0/.
spellingShingle Treatment Protocol Assessment
Baker, Jay B.
Maskell, Kevin F.
Matlock, Aaron G.
Walsh, Ryan M.
Skinner, Carl G.
Comparison of Preloaded Bougie versus Standard Bougie Technique for Endotracheal Intubation in a Cadaveric Model
title Comparison of Preloaded Bougie versus Standard Bougie Technique for Endotracheal Intubation in a Cadaveric Model
title_full Comparison of Preloaded Bougie versus Standard Bougie Technique for Endotracheal Intubation in a Cadaveric Model
title_fullStr Comparison of Preloaded Bougie versus Standard Bougie Technique for Endotracheal Intubation in a Cadaveric Model
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Preloaded Bougie versus Standard Bougie Technique for Endotracheal Intubation in a Cadaveric Model
title_short Comparison of Preloaded Bougie versus Standard Bougie Technique for Endotracheal Intubation in a Cadaveric Model
title_sort comparison of preloaded bougie versus standard bougie technique for endotracheal intubation in a cadaveric model
topic Treatment Protocol Assessment
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4530924/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26265978
http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2015.4.22857
work_keys_str_mv AT bakerjayb comparisonofpreloadedbougieversusstandardbougietechniqueforendotrachealintubationinacadavericmodel
AT maskellkevinf comparisonofpreloadedbougieversusstandardbougietechniqueforendotrachealintubationinacadavericmodel
AT matlockaarong comparisonofpreloadedbougieversusstandardbougietechniqueforendotrachealintubationinacadavericmodel
AT walshryanm comparisonofpreloadedbougieversusstandardbougietechniqueforendotrachealintubationinacadavericmodel
AT skinnercarlg comparisonofpreloadedbougieversusstandardbougietechniqueforendotrachealintubationinacadavericmodel