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...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |