Cargando…

Comparison of Glidescope(®) Go(™), King Vision(™), Dahlhausen VL, I‑View(™) and Macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: A randomized crossover manikin study

BACKGROUND: In pre-hospital emergency care, video laryngoscopes (VLs) with disposable blades are preferably used due to hygienic reasons. However, there is limited existing data on the use of VLs with disposable blades by emergency medical staff. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the e...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Moritz, Andreas, Leonhardt, Veronika, Prottengeier, Johannes, Birkholz, Torsten, Schmidt, Joachim, Irouschek, Andrea
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392330/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32730283
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236474
_version_ 1783564826283343872
author Moritz, Andreas
Leonhardt, Veronika
Prottengeier, Johannes
Birkholz, Torsten
Schmidt, Joachim
Irouschek, Andrea
author_facet Moritz, Andreas
Leonhardt, Veronika
Prottengeier, Johannes
Birkholz, Torsten
Schmidt, Joachim
Irouschek, Andrea
author_sort Moritz, Andreas
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In pre-hospital emergency care, video laryngoscopes (VLs) with disposable blades are preferably used due to hygienic reasons. However, there is limited existing data on the use of VLs with disposable blades by emergency medical staff. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of four different VLs with disposable blades and the conventional standard Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by anesthetists with extensive previous experience and paramedics with little previous experience in endotracheal intubation (ETI) in a simulated difficult airway. METHODS: Fifty-eight anesthetists and fifty-four paramedics participated in our randomized crossover manikin trial. Each performed ETI with the new Glidescope(®) Go(™), the Dahlhausen VL, the King Vision(™), the I-View(™) and the Macintosh laryngoscope. “Time to intubate” was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were “time to vocal cords”, “time to ventilate”, overall success rate, number of intubation attempts and optimization maneuvers, Cormack-Lehane score, severity of dental compression and subjective impressions. RESULTS: The Glidescope(®) Go(™), the Dahlhausen VL and the King Vision(™) provided superior intubation conditions in both groups without affecting the number of intubation attempts or the time required for successful intubation. When used by anesthetists with extensive experience in ETI, the use of VLs did not affect the overall success rate. In the hands of paramedics with little previous experience in ETI, the failure rate with the Macintosh laryngoscope (14.8%) decreased to 3.7% using the Glidescope(®) Go(™) and the Dahlhausen VL. Despite the advantages of hyperangulated video laryngoscopes, the I-View(™) performed worst. CONCLUSIONS: VLs with hyperangulated blades facilitated ETI in both groups and decreased the failure rate by an absolute 11.1% when used by paramedics with little previous experience in ETI. Our results therefore suggest that hyperangulated VLs could be beneficial and might be the method of choice in comparable settings, especially for emergency medical staff with less experience in ETI.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7392330
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73923302020-08-14 Comparison of Glidescope(®) Go(™), King Vision(™), Dahlhausen VL, I‑View(™) and Macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: A randomized crossover manikin study Moritz, Andreas Leonhardt, Veronika Prottengeier, Johannes Birkholz, Torsten Schmidt, Joachim Irouschek, Andrea PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: In pre-hospital emergency care, video laryngoscopes (VLs) with disposable blades are preferably used due to hygienic reasons. However, there is limited existing data on the use of VLs with disposable blades by emergency medical staff. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of four different VLs with disposable blades and the conventional standard Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by anesthetists with extensive previous experience and paramedics with little previous experience in endotracheal intubation (ETI) in a simulated difficult airway. METHODS: Fifty-eight anesthetists and fifty-four paramedics participated in our randomized crossover manikin trial. Each performed ETI with the new Glidescope(®) Go(™), the Dahlhausen VL, the King Vision(™), the I-View(™) and the Macintosh laryngoscope. “Time to intubate” was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were “time to vocal cords”, “time to ventilate”, overall success rate, number of intubation attempts and optimization maneuvers, Cormack-Lehane score, severity of dental compression and subjective impressions. RESULTS: The Glidescope(®) Go(™), the Dahlhausen VL and the King Vision(™) provided superior intubation conditions in both groups without affecting the number of intubation attempts or the time required for successful intubation. When used by anesthetists with extensive experience in ETI, the use of VLs did not affect the overall success rate. In the hands of paramedics with little previous experience in ETI, the failure rate with the Macintosh laryngoscope (14.8%) decreased to 3.7% using the Glidescope(®) Go(™) and the Dahlhausen VL. Despite the advantages of hyperangulated video laryngoscopes, the I-View(™) performed worst. CONCLUSIONS: VLs with hyperangulated blades facilitated ETI in both groups and decreased the failure rate by an absolute 11.1% when used by paramedics with little previous experience in ETI. Our results therefore suggest that hyperangulated VLs could be beneficial and might be the method of choice in comparable settings, especially for emergency medical staff with less experience in ETI. Public Library of Science 2020-07-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7392330/ /pubmed/32730283 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236474 Text en © 2020 Moritz et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Moritz, Andreas
Leonhardt, Veronika
Prottengeier, Johannes
Birkholz, Torsten
Schmidt, Joachim
Irouschek, Andrea
Comparison of Glidescope(®) Go(™), King Vision(™), Dahlhausen VL, I‑View(™) and Macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: A randomized crossover manikin study
title Comparison of Glidescope(®) Go(™), King Vision(™), Dahlhausen VL, I‑View(™) and Macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: A randomized crossover manikin study
title_full Comparison of Glidescope(®) Go(™), King Vision(™), Dahlhausen VL, I‑View(™) and Macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: A randomized crossover manikin study
title_fullStr Comparison of Glidescope(®) Go(™), King Vision(™), Dahlhausen VL, I‑View(™) and Macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: A randomized crossover manikin study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Glidescope(®) Go(™), King Vision(™), Dahlhausen VL, I‑View(™) and Macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: A randomized crossover manikin study
title_short Comparison of Glidescope(®) Go(™), King Vision(™), Dahlhausen VL, I‑View(™) and Macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: A randomized crossover manikin study
title_sort comparison of glidescope(®) go(™), king vision(™), dahlhausen vl, i‑view(™) and macintosh laryngoscope use during difficult airway management simulation by experienced and inexperienced emergency medical staff: a randomized crossover manikin study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392330/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32730283
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0236474
work_keys_str_mv AT moritzandreas comparisonofglidescopegokingvisiondahlhausenvliviewandmacintoshlaryngoscopeuseduringdifficultairwaymanagementsimulationbyexperiencedandinexperiencedemergencymedicalstaffarandomizedcrossovermanikinstudy
AT leonhardtveronika comparisonofglidescopegokingvisiondahlhausenvliviewandmacintoshlaryngoscopeuseduringdifficultairwaymanagementsimulationbyexperiencedandinexperiencedemergencymedicalstaffarandomizedcrossovermanikinstudy
AT prottengeierjohannes comparisonofglidescopegokingvisiondahlhausenvliviewandmacintoshlaryngoscopeuseduringdifficultairwaymanagementsimulationbyexperiencedandinexperiencedemergencymedicalstaffarandomizedcrossovermanikinstudy
AT birkholztorsten comparisonofglidescopegokingvisiondahlhausenvliviewandmacintoshlaryngoscopeuseduringdifficultairwaymanagementsimulationbyexperiencedandinexperiencedemergencymedicalstaffarandomizedcrossovermanikinstudy
AT schmidtjoachim comparisonofglidescopegokingvisiondahlhausenvliviewandmacintoshlaryngoscopeuseduringdifficultairwaymanagementsimulationbyexperiencedandinexperiencedemergencymedicalstaffarandomizedcrossovermanikinstudy
AT irouschekandrea comparisonofglidescopegokingvisiondahlhausenvliviewandmacintoshlaryngoscopeuseduringdifficultairwaymanagementsimulationbyexperiencedandinexperiencedemergencymedicalstaffarandomizedcrossovermanikinstudy