Literature DB >> 25937380

Comparison of intubation through the McGrath MAC, GlideScope, AirTraq, and Miller Laryngoscope by paramedics during child CPR: a randomized crossover manikin trial.

Lukasz Szarpak1, Katarzyna Karczewska2, Togay Evrin3, Andrzej Kurowski4, Lukasz Czyzewski5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUD: Advanced airway management and endotracheal intubation (ETI) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is more difficult than, for example, during anesthesia. However, new devices such as video laryngoscopes should help in such circumstances. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of 4 intubation devices in pediatric manikin-simulated CPR.
METHODS: One hundred two paramedics participated in this study. None had prior experience in video laryngoscopy. After a standardized audiovisual lecture lasting 45 minutes, the paramedics participated in a practical demonstration using the advanced pediatric patient simulator PediaSIM CPR (FCAE HealthCare, Sarasota, FL), which was designed to be an accurate representation of a 6-year-old child. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation was performed using LUCAS-2 (Physio-Contro, Redmond, WA). Afterward, paramedics were instructed to perform ETI using 4 intubation devices (MacGrathMAC, GlideScope, AirTraq, and Miller Laryngoscope Blade [Miller]) in a randomized sequence. The primary outcome was the success rate of tracheal intubation. The secondary outcome was the time to intubation.
RESULTS: The mean time to intubation was 30.7 ± 15.3, 28.6 ± 15.9, 24.1 ± 5.0, and 39.3 ± 14.7 seconds (McGrath, GlideScope, AirTraq, and Miller, respectively); and the success ratio of intubation for the devices was 100% vs 100% vs 100% vs 77.5%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Child ETI performed by paramedics during uninterrupted chest compression often has a low success rate. In contrast, McGrath, GlideScope, and AirTraq intubation devices are fast, safe, and easy to use. Within the limitations of a manikin study, this study suggests that inexperienced medical staff might benefit from using video laryngoscopy devices for child emergency airway management.
Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25937380     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2015.04.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  3 in total

1.  A comparison of McGrath MAC® and standard direct laryngoscopy in simulated immobilized cervical spine pediatric intubation: a manikin study.

Authors:  Marcin Madziala; Jacek Smereka; Marek Dabrowski; Steve Leung; Kurt Ruetzler; Lukasz Szarpak
Journal:  Eur J Pediatr       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 3.183

2.  Comparison of Direct and Video Laryngoscopes during Different Airway Scenarios Performed by Experienced Paramedics: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Study.

Authors:  Kurt Ruetzler; Lukasz Szarpak; Jacek Smereka; Marek Dabrowski; Szymon Bialka; Lauretta Mosteller; Agnieszka Szarpak; Kobi Ludwin; Marzena Wojewodzka-Zelezniakowicz; Jerzy Robert Ladny
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-02-18       Impact factor: 3.411

3.  Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope and Macintosh Laryngoscope in Children with Torticollis: Randomized Controlled Trial.

Authors:  Min Hur; Jong Yeop Kim; Sang Kee Min; Kyuheok Lee; Young Ju Won; Ji Eun Kim
Journal:  Children (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-10
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.