Literature DB >> 24400965

Comparison of success rates between two video laryngoscope systems used in a prehospital clinical trial.

Aaron M Burnett, Ralph J Frascone, Sandi S Wewerka, Samantha E Kealey, Zabrina N Evens, Kent R Griffith, Joshua G Salzman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The primary aims of this study were to compare paramedic success rates and complications of two different video laryngoscopes in a prehospital clinical study.
METHODS: This study was a multi-agency, prospective, non-randomized, cross over clinical trial involving paramedics from four different EMS agencies. Following completion of training sessions, six Storz CMAC™ video laryngoscopes and six King Vision™ (KV) video laryngoscopes were divided between agencies and placed into service for 6 months. Paramedics were instructed to use the video laryngoscope for all patients estimated to be ≥ 18 years old who required advanced airway management per standard operating procedure. After 6 months, the devices were crossed over for the final 6 months of the study period. Data collection was completed using a telephone data collection system with a member of the research team (available 24/7). First attempt success, overall success, and success by attempt, were compared between treatment groups using exact logistic regression adjusted for call type and user experience.
RESULTS: Over a 12-month period, 107 patients (66 CMAC, 41 KV) were treated with a study device. The CMAC had a significantly higher likelihood of first attempt success (OR = 1.85; 95% CI 0.74, 4.62; p = 0.188), overall success (OR = 7.37; 95% CI 1.73, 11.1; p = 0.002), and success by attempt (OR = 3.38; 95% CI 1.67, 6.8; p = 0.007) compared to KV. Providers reverted to direct laryngoscopy in 80% (27/34) of the video laryngoscope failure cases, with the remaining patients having their airways successfully managed with a supraglottic airway in 3 cases and bag-valve mask in 4 cases. The provider-reported complications were similar and none were statistically different between treatment groups. Complication rates were not statistically different between devices.
CONCLUSION: The CMAC had a higher likelihood of successful intubation compared to the King Vision. Complication rates were not statistically different between groups. Video laryngoscope placement success rates were not higher than our historical direct laryngoscopy success rates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24400965     DOI: 10.3109/10903127.2013.851309

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


  9 in total

1.  [Comparison of five video laryngoscopes and conventional direct laryngoscopy : Investigations on simple and simulated difficult airways on the intubation trainer].

Authors:  K Ruetzler; S Imach; M Weiss; T Haas; A R Schmidt
Journal:  Anaesthesist       Date:  2015-07-15       Impact factor: 1.041

Review 2.  Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation.

Authors:  Sharon R Lewis; Andrew R Butler; Joshua Parker; Tim M Cook; Andrew F Smith
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-15

3.  A Randomized Comparison Simulating Face to Face Endotracheal Intubation of Pentax Airway Scope, C-MAC Video Laryngoscope, Glidescope Video Laryngoscope, and Macintosh Laryngoscope.

Authors:  Hyun Young Choi; Young Min Oh; Gu Hyun Kang; Hyunggoo Kang; Yong Soo Jang; Wonhee Kim; Euichung Kim; Young Soon Cho; Hyukjoong Choi; Hyunjong Kim; Gyoung Yong Kim
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-06-16       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  Current evidence for the use of C-MAC videolaryngoscope in adult airway management: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Fu-Shan Xue; Hui-Xian Li; Ya-Yang Liu; Gui-Zhen Yang
Journal:  Ther Clin Risk Manag       Date:  2017-07-03       Impact factor: 2.423

5.  Transfer of skills and comparison of performance between king vision® video laryngoscope and macintosh blade following an AHA airway management course.

Authors:  Lukas E Wolf; José A Aguirre; Christian Vogt; Christian Keller; Alain Borgeat; Heinz R Bruppacher
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 2.217

Review 6.  Video screen visualization patterns when using a video laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review.

Authors:  Preston Dean; Benjamin Kerrey
Journal:  J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open       Date:  2022-01-06

7.  Using King Vision video laryngoscope with a channeled blade prolongs time for tracheal intubation in different training levels, compared to non-channeled blade.

Authors:  Marc Kriege; Christian Alflen; Ruediger R Noppens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  A comparison of direct laryngoscopy to video laryngoscopy by paramedic students in manikin-simulated airway management scenarios.

Authors:  Tyron Maartens; Benjamin de Waal
Journal:  Afr J Emerg Med       Date:  2017-05-25

9.  [The role of videolaryngoscope in endotracheal intubation training programs].

Authors:  Recai Dagli; Mehmet Canturk; Fatma Celik; Zeynel Abidin Erbesler; Meryem Gurler
Journal:  Braz J Anesthesiol       Date:  2018-07-17
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.