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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Truszewski, Zenon, Krajewski, Paweł, Fudalej, Marcin, Smereka, Jacek, Frass, Michael, Robak, Oliver, Nguyen, Bianka, Ruetzler, Kurt, Szarpak, Lukasz
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