Literature DB >> 20199237

Comparison of traditional versus video laryngoscopy in out-of-hospital tracheal intubation.

Marvin A Wayne1, Mannix McDonnell.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hospital tracheal intubation is controversial because of questions regarding its safety as well as its impact on patient care. Factors contributing to the controversy include failed intubations, number of attempts required, prolonged periods without ventilation, and misplaced tracheal tubes. However, the most important factors are the decision-making and clinical skills of the intubator. Unfortunately, the limited number of outcome studies adds to the controversy. New technology, the video laryngoscope, has been introduced to facilitate tracheal intubation. At least one model of video laryngoscope (GlideScope Ranger) has been designed for out-of-hospital use. In an effort to assess the effect this technology might have on out-of-hospital intubation, a study comparing traditional laryngoscopy (TL) versus video laryngoscopy (VL) was performed. The study endpoint was the number of attempts to achieve intubation. Data were also collected on time to intubate, nonventilated periods, unrecognized misplaced tubes, and complications of the procedure.
METHODS: Data were collected on 300 consecutive patients, 6 years of age or older, weighing at least 20 kg, who were intubated using TL. They were compared with data on 315 patients who were intubated using VL. All intubations were confirmed by visualization where possible, auscultation, misting, and capnography. In addition, all were continuously monitored by capnography.
RESULTS: The average time to intubate in the VL group was 21 seconds (range 8-43 seconds) versus 42 seconds (range 28-90 seconds) in the TL group. The average number of attempts was 1.2 (range 1-3) in the VL group versus 2.3 (range 1-4) in the TL group. Successful intubation was 97% in the VL group versus 95% in the TL group. There were no unrecognized misplaced tubes in either group. For failed intubations, an alternative airway was successful in 99% of the VL group and 99% of the TL group. Maximum nonventilated time during any one intubation attempt was 37 seconds in the VL group and 55 seconds in the TL group.
CONCLUSIONS: The numbers of attempts were significantly reduced in the VL group. This suggests that the use of VL has a positive effect on the number of attempts to achieve tracheal intubation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20199237     DOI: 10.3109/10903120903537189

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care        ISSN: 1090-3127            Impact factor:   3.077


  18 in total

1.  Comparing Video and Direct Laryngoscopy for Nasotracheal Intubation.

Authors:  Brett J King; Ira Padnos; Kenneth Mancuso; Brian J Christensen
Journal:  Anesth Prog       Date:  2020-12-01

2.  The visualization of glottis during intubation's efforts in super obese patients: a comparison of total track video intubating laryngeal mask and McGrath MAC videolaryngoscope.

Authors:  Tomasz Gaszyński
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.502

3.  Variables associated with successful intubation attempts using video laryngoscopy: a preliminary report in a helicopter emergency medical service.

Authors:  Jestin N Carlson; Jorge Quintero; Francis X Guyette; Clifton W Callaway; James J Menegazzi
Journal:  Prehosp Emerg Care       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 3.077

4.  A comparative study on the usefulness of the Glidescope or Macintosh laryngoscope when intubating normal airways.

Authors:  Guen Seok Choi; Eun-Ha Lee; Chae Seong Lim; Seok-Hwa Yoon
Journal:  Korean J Anesthesiol       Date:  2011-05-31

5.  Use of Airtraq, C-Mac, and Glidescope laryngoscope is better than Macintosh in novice medical students' hands: A manikin study.

Authors:  Abdullah M Kaki; Waleed A Almarakbi; Hazem M Fawzi; Abdulaziz M Boker
Journal:  Saudi J Anaesth       Date:  2011-10

Review 6.  Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Donald E G Griesdale; David Liu; James McKinney; Peter T Choi
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2011-11-01       Impact factor: 5.063

7.  Impact of Video Laryngoscopy on Advanced Airway Management by Critical Care Transport Paramedics and Nurses Using the CMAC Pocket Monitor.

Authors:  Bradley Boehringer; Michael Choate; Shelley Hurwitz; Peter V R Tilney; Thomas Judge
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-06-17       Impact factor: 3.411

8.  GlideScope and Frova Introducer for Difficult Airway Management.

Authors:  Alessandra Ciccozzi; Chiara Angeletti; Cristiana Guetti; Roberta Papola; Paolo Matteo Angeletti; Antonella Paladini; Giustino Varrassi; Franco Marinangeli
Journal:  Case Rep Anesthesiol       Date:  2013-08-07

9.  Use of the Airtraq® device for airway management in the prehospital setting--a retrospective study.

Authors:  Mikael Gellerfors; Agneta Larsson; Christer H Svensén; Dan Gryth
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2014-02-03       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  Videolaryngoscopy.

Authors:  Rv Chemsian; S Bhananker; R Ramaiah
Journal:  Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci       Date:  2014-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.