Literature DB >> 19664096

A comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department.

Timothy F Platts-Mills1, Danielle Campagne, Brian Chinnock, Brandy Snowden, Larry T Glickman, Gregory W Hendey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The first-attempt success rate of intubation was compared using GlideScope video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in an emergency department (ED).
METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted of adult patients undergoing intubation in the ED of a Level 1 trauma center with an emergency medicine residency program. Patients were consecutively enrolled between August 2006 and February 2008. Data collected included indication for intubation, patient characteristics, device used, initial oxygen saturation, and resident postgraduate year. The primary outcome measure was success with first attempt. Secondary outcome measures included time to successful intubation, intubation failure, and lowest oxygen saturation levels. An attempt was defined as the introduction of the laryngoscope into the mouth. Failure was defined as an esophageal intubation, changing to a different device or physician, or inability to place the endotracheal tube after three attempts.
RESULTS: A total of 280 patients were enrolled, of whom video laryngoscopy was used for the initial intubation attempt in 63 (22%) and direct laryngoscopy was used in 217 (78%). Reasons for intubation included altered mental status (64%), respiratory distress (47%), facial trauma (9%), and immobilization for imaging (9%). Overall, 233 (83%) intubations were successful on the first attempt, 26 (9%) failures occurred, and one patient received a cricothyrotomy. The first-attempt success rate was 51 of 63 (81%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 70% to 89%) for video laryngoscopy versus 182 of 217 (84%, 95% CI = 79% to 88%) for direct laryngoscopy (p = 0.59). Median time to successful intubation was 42 seconds (range, 13 to 350 seconds) for video laryngoscopy versus 30 seconds (range, 11 to 600 seconds) for direct laryngoscopy (p < 0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: Rates of successful intubation on first attempt were not significantly different between video and direct laryngoscopy. However, intubation using video laryngoscopy required significantly more time to complete. (c) 2009 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19664096     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00492.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  33 in total

1.  Assessing the efficacy of video versus direct laryngoscopy through retrospective comparison of 436 emergency intubation cases.

Authors:  Benjamen M Jones; Ankit Agrawal; Thomas E Schulte
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2013-06-13       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  Emergency airway management using the Bonfils intubation fiberscope.

Authors:  Ruggero M Corso; Giorgio Gambale; Emanuele Piraccini; Flavia Petrini
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2010-03-10       Impact factor: 3.397

3.  Mind the gap: can videolaryngoscopy bridge the competency gap in neonatal endotracheal intubation among pediatric trainees? a randomized controlled study.

Authors:  S Parmekar; J L Arnold; C Anselmo; M Pammi; J Hagan; C J Fernandes; K Lingappan
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2017-05-18       Impact factor: 2.521

4.  Video versus direct laryngoscopy on successful first-pass endotracheal intubation in ICU patients.

Authors:  Yong-Xia Gao; Yan-Bo Song; Ze-Juan Gu; Jin-Song Zhang; Xu-Feng Chen; Hao Sun; Zhen Lu
Journal:  World J Emerg Med       Date:  2018

5.  Comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of patients with difficult airway characteristics in the emergency department.

Authors:  John Constantine Sakles; Asad E Patanwala; Jarrod M Mosier; John Michael Dicken
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 3.397

6.  [Out-of-hospital airway management in trauma patients : Experiences with the C-MAC® video laryngoscope].

Authors:  B Hossfeld; A Jongebloed; L Lampl; M Helm
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 1.000

Review 7.  Perioperative management of adult traumatic brain injury.

Authors:  Deepak Sharma; Monica S Vavilala
Journal:  Anesthesiol Clin       Date:  2012-06-13

8.  A comparison of the GlideScope video laryngoscope to the C-MAC video laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department.

Authors:  Jarrod Mosier; Stephen Chiu; Asad E Patanwala; John C Sakles
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 5.721

9.  Management of Difficult Airway in a Failed Intubation with Videolaryngoscopy in an Infant Patient.

Authors:  Alparslan Kuş; Derya Berk; Yavuz Gürkan; Mine Solak; Kamil Toker
Journal:  Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim       Date:  2014-03-11

10.  Improvement in GlideScope® Video Laryngoscopy performance over a seven-year period in an academic emergency department.

Authors:  John C Sakles; Jarrod Mosier; Asad E Patanwala; John Dicken
Journal:  Intern Emerg Med       Date:  2014-08-28       Impact factor: 3.397

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.