Comparison of VividTrac, King Vision and Macintosh laryngoscopes in normal and difficult airways during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation among novices.
<h4>Introduction</h4>Early endotracheal intubation improves neurological outcomes in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, although cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initially carried out by personnel with limited experience in a significant proportion of cases. Videolaryngoscopes might decrease...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/f40fa36951234725b1eba9e9bb7762f4 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | <h4>Introduction</h4>Early endotracheal intubation improves neurological outcomes in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, although cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initially carried out by personnel with limited experience in a significant proportion of cases. Videolaryngoscopes might decrease the number of attempts and time needed, especially among novices. We sought to compare videolaryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopes in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenarios.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>Forty-four medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students executed endotracheal intubation with the King Vision®, Macintosh and VividTrac® laryngoscopes, on a cardiopulmonary resuscitation trainer in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma and user satisfaction.<h4>Results</h4>In the normal airway scenario, significantly shorter intubation times were achieved using the King Vision® than the Macintosh laryngoscope. In the difficult airway scenario, we found that the VividTrac® was superior to the King Vision® and Macintosh laryngoscopes in the laryngoscopy time. In both scenarios, we noted no difference in the first-attempt success rate, but the best view of the glottis and dental trauma, esophageal intubation and bougie use were more frequent with the Macintosh laryngoscope than with the videolaryngoscopes. The shortest tube insertion times were achieved using the King Vision® in both scenarios.<h4>Conclusion</h4>All providers achieved successful intubation within three attempts, but we found no device superior in any of our scenarios regarding the first-attempt success rate. The King Vision® was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope in the intubation time in the normal airway scenario and noninferior in the difficult airway scenario for novice users. We noted significantly less esophageal intubation using the videolaryngoscopes than using the Macintosh laryngoscope in both scenarios. Based on our results, the KingVision® might be recommended over the VividTrac® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for further evaluation. |
|---|