Cargando…

Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial

The aim of the study was to compare the intubation times and success rates of various laryngoscopes during resuscitation in pediatric emergency intubation with uninterrupted chest compression on a standardized pediatric manikin model. This was a randomized crossover study with 107 paramedic particip...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Szarpak, Łukasz, Czyżewski, Łukasz, Truszewski, Zenon, Kurowski, Andrzej, Gaszyński, Tomasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4623092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25994245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-015-2567-8
_version_ 1782397641455304704
author Szarpak, Łukasz
Czyżewski, Łukasz
Truszewski, Zenon
Kurowski, Andrzej
Gaszyński, Tomasz
author_facet Szarpak, Łukasz
Czyżewski, Łukasz
Truszewski, Zenon
Kurowski, Andrzej
Gaszyński, Tomasz
author_sort Szarpak, Łukasz
collection PubMed
description The aim of the study was to compare the intubation times and success rates of various laryngoscopes during resuscitation in pediatric emergency intubation with uninterrupted chest compression on a standardized pediatric manikin model. This was a randomized crossover study with 107 paramedic participants. We compared times to successful intubation, intubation success rates, and glottic visibility using a Cormack–Lehane grade for Macintosh, Intubrite®, Coopdech®, and Copilot® laryngoscopes. One hundred seven paramedics (mean age 31.2 ± 7.5 years) routinely involved in the management of prehospital care participated in this study. Intubation success rates (overall effectiveness), which was the primary study endpoint, were highest for the Coopdech® and CoPilot® devices (100 %) and were lowest for Intubrite® (89.7 %, p < 0.001) and Macintosh (80.4 %, p < 0.001). The secondary study endpoint, time to first effective ventilation, was achieved fastest when using the Coopdech® laryngoscope (21.6 ± 6.2 s) and was significantly slower with all other devices (Intubrite® 25.4 ± 10.5 s, p = 0.006; CoPilot® 25.6 ± 7.4 s, p = 0.007; Macintosh 29.4 ± 8.2 s, p < 0.001). Conclusion: We conclude that in child simulations managed by paramedics, the Coopdech® and Copilot® video laryngoscopes performed better than the standard Macintosh or Intubrite® laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation during child chest compression.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4623092
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46230922015-10-30 Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial Szarpak, Łukasz Czyżewski, Łukasz Truszewski, Zenon Kurowski, Andrzej Gaszyński, Tomasz Eur J Pediatr Original Article The aim of the study was to compare the intubation times and success rates of various laryngoscopes during resuscitation in pediatric emergency intubation with uninterrupted chest compression on a standardized pediatric manikin model. This was a randomized crossover study with 107 paramedic participants. We compared times to successful intubation, intubation success rates, and glottic visibility using a Cormack–Lehane grade for Macintosh, Intubrite®, Coopdech®, and Copilot® laryngoscopes. One hundred seven paramedics (mean age 31.2 ± 7.5 years) routinely involved in the management of prehospital care participated in this study. Intubation success rates (overall effectiveness), which was the primary study endpoint, were highest for the Coopdech® and CoPilot® devices (100 %) and were lowest for Intubrite® (89.7 %, p < 0.001) and Macintosh (80.4 %, p < 0.001). The secondary study endpoint, time to first effective ventilation, was achieved fastest when using the Coopdech® laryngoscope (21.6 ± 6.2 s) and was significantly slower with all other devices (Intubrite® 25.4 ± 10.5 s, p = 0.006; CoPilot® 25.6 ± 7.4 s, p = 0.007; Macintosh 29.4 ± 8.2 s, p < 0.001). Conclusion: We conclude that in child simulations managed by paramedics, the Coopdech® and Copilot® video laryngoscopes performed better than the standard Macintosh or Intubrite® laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation during child chest compression. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2015-05-21 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4623092/ /pubmed/25994245 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-015-2567-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2015 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Original Article
Szarpak, Łukasz
Czyżewski, Łukasz
Truszewski, Zenon
Kurowski, Andrzej
Gaszyński, Tomasz
Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial
title Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial
title_full Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial
title_fullStr Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial
title_short Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial
title_sort comparison of coopdech®, copilot®, intubrite®, and macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4623092/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25994245
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00431-015-2567-8
work_keys_str_mv AT szarpakłukasz comparisonofcoopdechcopilotintubriteandmacintoshlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationduringpediatriccardiopulmonaryresuscitationarandomizedcontrolledcrossoversimulationtrial
AT czyzewskiłukasz comparisonofcoopdechcopilotintubriteandmacintoshlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationduringpediatriccardiopulmonaryresuscitationarandomizedcontrolledcrossoversimulationtrial
AT truszewskizenon comparisonofcoopdechcopilotintubriteandmacintoshlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationduringpediatriccardiopulmonaryresuscitationarandomizedcontrolledcrossoversimulationtrial
AT kurowskiandrzej comparisonofcoopdechcopilotintubriteandmacintoshlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationduringpediatriccardiopulmonaryresuscitationarandomizedcontrolledcrossoversimulationtrial
AT gaszynskitomasz comparisonofcoopdechcopilotintubriteandmacintoshlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationduringpediatriccardiopulmonaryresuscitationarandomizedcontrolledcrossoversimulationtrial