Cargando…
A comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus ETView SL in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: A randomized, crossover cadaver trial
BACKGROUND: Airway management is a crucial skill essential to paramedics and personnel working in Emergency Medical Services and Emergency Departments: Lack of practice, a difficult airway, or a trauma situation may limit the ability of paramedics to perform direct laryngoscopy during cardiopulmonar...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer Health
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5591099/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27858851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005170 |
_version_ | 1783262640258154496 |
---|---|
author | Truszewski, Zenon Krajewski, Paweł Fudalej, Marcin Smereka, Jacek Frass, Michael Robak, Oliver Nguyen, Bianka Ruetzler, Kurt Szarpak, Lukasz |
author_facet | Truszewski, Zenon Krajewski, Paweł Fudalej, Marcin Smereka, Jacek Frass, Michael Robak, Oliver Nguyen, Bianka Ruetzler, Kurt Szarpak, Lukasz |
author_sort | Truszewski, Zenon |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Airway management is a crucial skill essential to paramedics and personnel working in Emergency Medical Services and Emergency Departments: Lack of practice, a difficult airway, or a trauma situation may limit the ability of paramedics to perform direct laryngoscopy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Videoscope devices are alternatives for airway management in these situations. The ETView VivaSight SL (ETView; ETView Ltd., Misgav, Israel) is a new, single-lumen airway tube with an integrated high-resolution imaging camera. To assess if the ETView VivaSight SL can be a superior alternative to a standard endotracheal tube for intubation in an adult cadaver model, both during and without simulated CPR. METHODS: ETView VivaSight SL tube was investigated via an interventional, randomized, crossover, cadaver study. A total of 52 paramedics participated in the intubation of human cadavers in three different scenarios: a normal airway at rest without concomitant chest compression (CC) (scenario A), a normal airway with uninterrupted CC (scenario B) and manual in-line stabilization (scenario C). Time and rate of success for intubation, the glottic view scale, and ease-of-use of ETView vs. sETT intubation were assessed for each emergency scenario. RESULTS: The median time to intubation using ETView vs. sETT was compared for each of the aforementioned scenarios. For scenario A, time to first ventilation was achieved fastest for ETView, 19.5 [IQR, 16.5–22] sec, when compared to that of sETT at 21.5 [IQR, 20–25] sec (p = .013). In scenario B, the time for intubation using ETView was 21 [IQR, 18.5–24.5] sec (p < .001) and sETT was 27 [IQR, 24.5–31.5] sec. Time to first ventilation for scenario C was 23.5 [IQR, 19–25.5] sec for the ETView and 42.5 [IQR, 35–49.5] sec for sETT. CONCLUSIONS: In normal airways and situations with continuous chest compressions, the success rate for intubation of cadavers and the time to ventilation were improved with the ETView. The time to glottis view, tube insertion, and cuff block were all found to be shorter with the ETView. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02733536. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5591099 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer Health |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-55910992017-09-15 A comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus ETView SL in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: A randomized, crossover cadaver trial Truszewski, Zenon Krajewski, Paweł Fudalej, Marcin Smereka, Jacek Frass, Michael Robak, Oliver Nguyen, Bianka Ruetzler, Kurt Szarpak, Lukasz Medicine (Baltimore) 3900 BACKGROUND: Airway management is a crucial skill essential to paramedics and personnel working in Emergency Medical Services and Emergency Departments: Lack of practice, a difficult airway, or a trauma situation may limit the ability of paramedics to perform direct laryngoscopy during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Videoscope devices are alternatives for airway management in these situations. The ETView VivaSight SL (ETView; ETView Ltd., Misgav, Israel) is a new, single-lumen airway tube with an integrated high-resolution imaging camera. To assess if the ETView VivaSight SL can be a superior alternative to a standard endotracheal tube for intubation in an adult cadaver model, both during and without simulated CPR. METHODS: ETView VivaSight SL tube was investigated via an interventional, randomized, crossover, cadaver study. A total of 52 paramedics participated in the intubation of human cadavers in three different scenarios: a normal airway at rest without concomitant chest compression (CC) (scenario A), a normal airway with uninterrupted CC (scenario B) and manual in-line stabilization (scenario C). Time and rate of success for intubation, the glottic view scale, and ease-of-use of ETView vs. sETT intubation were assessed for each emergency scenario. RESULTS: The median time to intubation using ETView vs. sETT was compared for each of the aforementioned scenarios. For scenario A, time to first ventilation was achieved fastest for ETView, 19.5 [IQR, 16.5–22] sec, when compared to that of sETT at 21.5 [IQR, 20–25] sec (p = .013). In scenario B, the time for intubation using ETView was 21 [IQR, 18.5–24.5] sec (p < .001) and sETT was 27 [IQR, 24.5–31.5] sec. Time to first ventilation for scenario C was 23.5 [IQR, 19–25.5] sec for the ETView and 42.5 [IQR, 35–49.5] sec for sETT. CONCLUSIONS: In normal airways and situations with continuous chest compressions, the success rate for intubation of cadavers and the time to ventilation were improved with the ETView. The time to glottis view, tube insertion, and cuff block were all found to be shorter with the ETView. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02733536. Wolters Kluwer Health 2016-11-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5591099/ /pubmed/27858851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005170 Text en Copyright © 2016 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 |
spellingShingle | 3900 Truszewski, Zenon Krajewski, Paweł Fudalej, Marcin Smereka, Jacek Frass, Michael Robak, Oliver Nguyen, Bianka Ruetzler, Kurt Szarpak, Lukasz A comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus ETView SL in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: A randomized, crossover cadaver trial |
title | A comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus ETView SL in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: A randomized, crossover cadaver trial |
title_full | A comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus ETView SL in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: A randomized, crossover cadaver trial |
title_fullStr | A comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus ETView SL in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: A randomized, crossover cadaver trial |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus ETView SL in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: A randomized, crossover cadaver trial |
title_short | A comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus ETView SL in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: A randomized, crossover cadaver trial |
title_sort | comparison of a traditional endotracheal tube versus etview sl in endotracheal intubation during different emergency conditions: a randomized, crossover cadaver trial |
topic | 3900 |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5591099/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27858851 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000005170 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT truszewskizenon acomparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT krajewskipaweł acomparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT fudalejmarcin acomparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT smerekajacek acomparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT frassmichael acomparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT robakoliver acomparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT nguyenbianka acomparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT ruetzlerkurt acomparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT szarpaklukasz acomparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT truszewskizenon comparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT krajewskipaweł comparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT fudalejmarcin comparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT smerekajacek comparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT frassmichael comparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT robakoliver comparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT nguyenbianka comparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT ruetzlerkurt comparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial AT szarpaklukasz comparisonofatraditionalendotrachealtubeversusetviewslinendotrachealintubationduringdifferentemergencyconditionsarandomizedcrossovercadavertrial |