Cargando…

Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial

INTRODUCTION: Airway management is one of key elements of resuscitation. Endotracheal intubation is still considered the gold standard for airway management during resuscitation. AIM: The aim of the study was to compare success rates and intubation time of different endotracheal intubation methods d...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Evrin, Togay, Smereka, Jacek, Gorczyca, Damian, Bialka, Szymon, Ladny, Jerzy Robert, Katipoglu, Burak, Szarpak, Lukasz
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6719269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31531242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7306204
_version_ 1783447902802149376
author Evrin, Togay
Smereka, Jacek
Gorczyca, Damian
Bialka, Szymon
Ladny, Jerzy Robert
Katipoglu, Burak
Szarpak, Lukasz
author_facet Evrin, Togay
Smereka, Jacek
Gorczyca, Damian
Bialka, Szymon
Ladny, Jerzy Robert
Katipoglu, Burak
Szarpak, Lukasz
author_sort Evrin, Togay
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: Airway management is one of key elements of resuscitation. Endotracheal intubation is still considered the gold standard for airway management during resuscitation. AIM: The aim of the study was to compare success rates and intubation time of different endotracheal intubation methods during emergency intubation with difficult airways in the conditions of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a standardized manikin model. METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, cross-over simulation study. It involved 46 paramedics with at least 5 years of experience in Emergency Medical Service. The participants performed endotracheal intubation under difficult airway conditions during continuous chest compression, implemented with the LUCAS3 chest compression system. Three methods of tracheal intubation were applied: (1) standard Macintosh laryngoscope without a bougie stylet; (2) standard laryngoscope and a standard bougie stylet; (3) standard laryngoscope and a new bougie stylet. RESULTS: The overall intubation success rate was 100% in the standard bougie and new bougie groups and lower (86.9%) when no bougie stylet was used (P=0.028). The intubation success rate with the 1(st) attempt equalled 91.3% for the new bougie group, 73.9% for standard bougie, and only 23.9% in the no-bougie group. The median intubation time was shortest in the new bougie group, where it amounted to 29 s (interquartile range [IQR]: 25–38); the time equalled 38s (IQR:31–44.5) in the standard bougie group and 47.5s (IQR:36–58) in the no-bougie group. The ease of use was lowest in the no-bougie group (85, IQR:63–88), average in the standard bougie group (44, IQR:30–51), and highest in the new bougie stylet group (32, IQR:19–41). CONCLUSION: In this manikin-based study, paramedics were able to perform endotracheal intubation with higher efficacy and in a shorter time using the new bougie stylet as compared with the standard bougie stylet.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6719269
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67192692019-09-17 Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial Evrin, Togay Smereka, Jacek Gorczyca, Damian Bialka, Szymon Ladny, Jerzy Robert Katipoglu, Burak Szarpak, Lukasz Emerg Med Int Research Article INTRODUCTION: Airway management is one of key elements of resuscitation. Endotracheal intubation is still considered the gold standard for airway management during resuscitation. AIM: The aim of the study was to compare success rates and intubation time of different endotracheal intubation methods during emergency intubation with difficult airways in the conditions of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a standardized manikin model. METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, cross-over simulation study. It involved 46 paramedics with at least 5 years of experience in Emergency Medical Service. The participants performed endotracheal intubation under difficult airway conditions during continuous chest compression, implemented with the LUCAS3 chest compression system. Three methods of tracheal intubation were applied: (1) standard Macintosh laryngoscope without a bougie stylet; (2) standard laryngoscope and a standard bougie stylet; (3) standard laryngoscope and a new bougie stylet. RESULTS: The overall intubation success rate was 100% in the standard bougie and new bougie groups and lower (86.9%) when no bougie stylet was used (P=0.028). The intubation success rate with the 1(st) attempt equalled 91.3% for the new bougie group, 73.9% for standard bougie, and only 23.9% in the no-bougie group. The median intubation time was shortest in the new bougie group, where it amounted to 29 s (interquartile range [IQR]: 25–38); the time equalled 38s (IQR:31–44.5) in the standard bougie group and 47.5s (IQR:36–58) in the no-bougie group. The ease of use was lowest in the no-bougie group (85, IQR:63–88), average in the standard bougie group (44, IQR:30–51), and highest in the new bougie stylet group (32, IQR:19–41). CONCLUSION: In this manikin-based study, paramedics were able to perform endotracheal intubation with higher efficacy and in a shorter time using the new bougie stylet as compared with the standard bougie stylet. Hindawi 2019-08-20 /pmc/articles/PMC6719269/ /pubmed/31531242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7306204 Text en Copyright © 2019 Togay Evrin et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Evrin, Togay
Smereka, Jacek
Gorczyca, Damian
Bialka, Szymon
Ladny, Jerzy Robert
Katipoglu, Burak
Szarpak, Lukasz
Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial
title Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial
title_full Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial
title_fullStr Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial
title_short Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial
title_sort comparison of different intubation methods in difficult airways during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation with continuous chest compression: a randomized cross-over manikin trial
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6719269/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31531242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2019/7306204
work_keys_str_mv AT evrintogay comparisonofdifferentintubationmethodsindifficultairwaysduringsimulatedcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwithcontinuouschestcompressionarandomizedcrossovermanikintrial
AT smerekajacek comparisonofdifferentintubationmethodsindifficultairwaysduringsimulatedcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwithcontinuouschestcompressionarandomizedcrossovermanikintrial
AT gorczycadamian comparisonofdifferentintubationmethodsindifficultairwaysduringsimulatedcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwithcontinuouschestcompressionarandomizedcrossovermanikintrial
AT bialkaszymon comparisonofdifferentintubationmethodsindifficultairwaysduringsimulatedcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwithcontinuouschestcompressionarandomizedcrossovermanikintrial
AT ladnyjerzyrobert comparisonofdifferentintubationmethodsindifficultairwaysduringsimulatedcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwithcontinuouschestcompressionarandomizedcrossovermanikintrial
AT katipogluburak comparisonofdifferentintubationmethodsindifficultairwaysduringsimulatedcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwithcontinuouschestcompressionarandomizedcrossovermanikintrial
AT szarpaklukasz comparisonofdifferentintubationmethodsindifficultairwaysduringsimulatedcardiopulmonaryresuscitationwithcontinuouschestcompressionarandomizedcrossovermanikintrial