AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the Glidescope(®) in a manikin cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) scenario. METHODS: Following a brief didactic session, 45 volunteer doctors inexperienced withairway management, attempted to intubate a manikin using a Macintosh laryngoscope and Glidescope(®) with uninterrupted and without chest compressions. Primary endpoints were intubation times and success rate with each device. Dental compression and level of self-confidence in using each device were also assessed. RESULTS: In the scenario without chest compressions the cumulative success rate related to time to intubation was significantly higher with the Macintosh blade than with the Glidescope(®) (p<0.001). On the contrary, in the scenario with continuous chest compressions, the cumulative rate related to time to intubation was significantly higher with the Glidescope(®) (p=0.035). Significantly fewer attempts were required for the first successful intubation with the Macintosh blade in the non-CPR scenario versus the CPR scenario (p=0.007). Moreover, the number of attempts for the first successful intubation was significantly lower for the Glidescope(®) in the non-CPR (p=0.001) and the CPR scenario (p<0.001). Dental compression was significantly lower with the Glidescope(®) in both scenarios (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using the GlideScope(®) in a manikin CPR scenario provides extremely high intubation success rates in short times with the first attempt, in medical practitioners inexperienced in intubation.
RCT Entities:
AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the Glidescope(®) in a manikin cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) scenario. METHODS: Following a brief didactic session, 45 volunteer doctors inexperienced with airway management, attempted to intubate a manikin using a Macintosh laryngoscope and Glidescope(®) with uninterrupted and without chest compressions. Primary endpoints were intubation times and success rate with each device. Dental compression and level of self-confidence in using each device were also assessed. RESULTS: In the scenario without chest compressions the cumulative success rate related to time to intubation was significantly higher with the Macintosh blade than with the Glidescope(®) (p<0.001). On the contrary, in the scenario with continuous chest compressions, the cumulative rate related to time to intubation was significantly higher with the Glidescope(®) (p=0.035). Significantly fewer attempts were required for the first successful intubation with the Macintosh blade in the non-CPR scenario versus the CPR scenario (p=0.007). Moreover, the number of attempts for the first successful intubation was significantly lower for the Glidescope(®) in the non-CPR (p=0.001) and the CPR scenario (p<0.001). Dental compression was significantly lower with the Glidescope(®) in both scenarios (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using the GlideScope(®) in a manikin CPR scenario provides extremely high intubation success rates in short times with the first attempt, in medical practitioners inexperienced in intubation.
Authors: Philipp Schuerner; Bastian Grande; Tobias Piegeler; Martin Schlaepfer; Leif Saager; Matthew T Hutcherson; Donat R Spahn; Kurt Ruetzler Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-19 Impact factor: 3.240