Cargando…

Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE: Video laryngoscopes are used for managing difficult airways. This study compared three video laryngoscopes’ (Pentax-Airway Scope [Pentax], King Vision[King] and McGrath MAC [McGrath]) performances with the Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) as emergency tracheal intubations (TIs) r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Suzuki, Kei, Kusunoki, Shinji, Tanigawa, Koichi, Shime, Nobuaki
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6475241/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30928937
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024927
_version_ 1783412742003097600
author Suzuki, Kei
Kusunoki, Shinji
Tanigawa, Koichi
Shime, Nobuaki
author_facet Suzuki, Kei
Kusunoki, Shinji
Tanigawa, Koichi
Shime, Nobuaki
author_sort Suzuki, Kei
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Video laryngoscopes are used for managing difficult airways. This study compared three video laryngoscopes’ (Pentax-Airway Scope [Pentax], King Vision[King] and McGrath MAC [McGrath]) performances with the Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) as emergency tracheal intubations (TIs) reference. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The emergency department (ED) and the intensive care unit (ICU) of two Japanese tertiary-level hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive video-recorded emergency TI cases in EDs and ICUs between December 2013 and June 2015. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary study endpoint was first-pass intubation success. A subgroup analysis examined the first-pass intubation success of expert versus non-expert operators. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of first-pass intubation success. RESULTS: A total of 287 emergency TIs were included. The first-pass intubation success rates were 78%, 58%, 78% and 58% for the Pentax, King, McGrath and Macintosh instruments, respectively (p=0.004, Fisher’s exact test). The non-expert operators’ success rates were significantly higher (p=0.00004, Fisher’s exact test) for the Pentax (87%) and McGrath (78%) instruments than that for the King (50%) and Macintosh (46%) instruments, unlike that of the experts (67%, 67%, 78% and 78% for Pentax, McGrath, King and Macintosh, respectively; p=0.556, Fisher’s exact test). After TI indication, difficult airway characteristics, and expert versus non-expert operator parameters adjustments, the Pentax (OR=3.422, 95% CI 1.551 to 7.550; p=0.002) and McGrath (OR= 3.758, CI 1.640 to 8.612; p=0.002) instruments showed significantly higher first-pass intubation success odds when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (reference, OR=1). The King instrument, however, (OR=1.056; 95% CI 0.487 to 2.289, p=0.889) failed to show any significant superiority. CONCLUSION: The Pentax and McGrath laryngoscopes showed significantly higher emergency TI first-pass intubation success rates than the King laryngoscope when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, especially for non-expert operators. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000027925; Results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6475241
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64752412019-05-07 Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study Suzuki, Kei Kusunoki, Shinji Tanigawa, Koichi Shime, Nobuaki BMJ Open Emergency Medicine OBJECTIVE: Video laryngoscopes are used for managing difficult airways. This study compared three video laryngoscopes’ (Pentax-Airway Scope [Pentax], King Vision[King] and McGrath MAC [McGrath]) performances with the Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) as emergency tracheal intubations (TIs) reference. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: The emergency department (ED) and the intensive care unit (ICU) of two Japanese tertiary-level hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: All consecutive video-recorded emergency TI cases in EDs and ICUs between December 2013 and June 2015. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary study endpoint was first-pass intubation success. A subgroup analysis examined the first-pass intubation success of expert versus non-expert operators. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of first-pass intubation success. RESULTS: A total of 287 emergency TIs were included. The first-pass intubation success rates were 78%, 58%, 78% and 58% for the Pentax, King, McGrath and Macintosh instruments, respectively (p=0.004, Fisher’s exact test). The non-expert operators’ success rates were significantly higher (p=0.00004, Fisher’s exact test) for the Pentax (87%) and McGrath (78%) instruments than that for the King (50%) and Macintosh (46%) instruments, unlike that of the experts (67%, 67%, 78% and 78% for Pentax, McGrath, King and Macintosh, respectively; p=0.556, Fisher’s exact test). After TI indication, difficult airway characteristics, and expert versus non-expert operator parameters adjustments, the Pentax (OR=3.422, 95% CI 1.551 to 7.550; p=0.002) and McGrath (OR= 3.758, CI 1.640 to 8.612; p=0.002) instruments showed significantly higher first-pass intubation success odds when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (reference, OR=1). The King instrument, however, (OR=1.056; 95% CI 0.487 to 2.289, p=0.889) failed to show any significant superiority. CONCLUSION: The Pentax and McGrath laryngoscopes showed significantly higher emergency TI first-pass intubation success rates than the King laryngoscope when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, especially for non-expert operators. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000027925; Results. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-03-30 /pmc/articles/PMC6475241/ /pubmed/30928937 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024927 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Emergency Medicine
Suzuki, Kei
Kusunoki, Shinji
Tanigawa, Koichi
Shime, Nobuaki
Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study
title Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study
title_full Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study
title_fullStr Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study
title_short Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study
title_sort comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: a retrospective cohort study
topic Emergency Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6475241/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30928937
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024927
work_keys_str_mv AT suzukikei comparisonofthreevideolaryngoscopesanddirectlaryngoscopyforemergencyendotrachealintubationaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT kusunokishinji comparisonofthreevideolaryngoscopesanddirectlaryngoscopyforemergencyendotrachealintubationaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT tanigawakoichi comparisonofthreevideolaryngoscopesanddirectlaryngoscopyforemergencyendotrachealintubationaretrospectivecohortstudy
AT shimenobuaki comparisonofthreevideolaryngoscopesanddirectlaryngoscopyforemergencyendotrachealintubationaretrospectivecohortstudy