| Literature DB >> 28429117 |
Marcin Madziala1, Jacek Smereka2, Marek Dabrowski3, Steve Leung4, Kurt Ruetzler4,5, Lukasz Szarpak6.
Abstract
Emergency airway management in children is generally considered to be challenging, and endotracheal intubation requires a high level of personal skills and experience. Immobilization of the cervical spine is indicated in all patients with the risk of any cervical spine injury but significantly aggravates endotracheal intubation. The best airway device in this setting has not been established yet, although the use of videolaryngoscopes is generally promising. Seventy-five moderately experienced paramedics of the Emergency Medical Service of Poland performed endotracheal intubations in a pediatric manikin in three airway scenarios: (A) normal airway, (B) manual in-line cervical immobilization, and (C) cervical immobilization using a Patriot cervical extrication collar and using two airway techniques: (1) McGrath videolaryngoscope and (2) Macintosh blade in a randomized sequence. First-attempt intubation success rate, time to intubation, glottis visualization, and subjective ease of intubation were investigated in this study. Intubation of difficult airways, including manual in-line and cervical collar immobilization, using the McGrath was significantly faster, with a higher first-attempt intubation success rate, better glottic visualization, and ease of intubation, compared to Macintosh-guided intubation. In the normal airway, both airway techniques performed equal.Entities:
Keywords: Airway management; Cervical immobilization; Manikin study; Pediatric endotracheal intubation; Videolaryngoscopy
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28429117 PMCID: PMC5432598 DOI: 10.1007/s00431-017-2909-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Pediatr ISSN: 0340-6199 Impact factor: 3.183
Fig. 1Intubation scenarios used in the study. a Scenario A—normal airway. b Scenario B—manual in-line cervical spine immobilization. c Scenario C—cervical immobilization using a standard Patriot cervical extrication collar
Fig. 2Laryngoscopes used for this study were a the standard Macintosh #2 laryngoscope and b the McGrath MAC laryngoscope
Fig. 3Flowchart of design and recruitment of participants according to the CONSORT statement
Fig. 4Median time (in seconds) required for endotracheal intubation with the two laryngoscopes in research scenarios
Intubation success rate
| Type of scenario | Parameter | Macintosh laryngoscope | McGrath laryngoscope |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario A | First-attempt success rate | 75 (100%) | 75 (100%) | NS |
| Overall success rate | 75 (100%) | 75 (100%) | NS | |
| Scenario B | First-attempt success rate | 54 (72%) | 74 (99%) | <0.001 |
| Overall success rate | 73 (97%) | 75 (100%) | NS | |
| Scenario C | First-attempt success rate | 34 (45.3%) | 70 (93%) | <0.001 |
| Overall success rate | 58 (77.3%) | 75 (100%) | <0.001 |
NS not statistically significant
Glottic view grade
| Type of scenario | Cormack and Lehane grade | Macintosh laryngoscope | McGrath laryngoscope |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario A | I | 65 (87%) | 73 (97%) | NS |
| II | 10 (13%) | 2 (3%) | ||
| III | – | – | ||
| IV | – | – | ||
| Scenario B | I | 14 (19%) | 47 (63%) | <0.001 |
| II | 36 (48%) | 28 (37%) | ||
| III | 25 (33%) | – | ||
| IV | – | – | ||
| Scenario C | I | 5 (7%) | 32 (43%) | <0.001 |
| II | 27 (36%) | 43 (57%) | ||
| III | 42 (56%) | – | ||
| IV | 1 (1%) | – |
NS not statistically significant
Ease of intubation
| Type of scenario | Macintosh laryngoscope | McGrath laryngoscope |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Scenario A | 8.5 | 9 | 0.043 |
| Scenario B | 6 | 8 | 0.008 |
| Scenario C | 4 | 7 | <0.001 |
IQR interquartile range
|
|
|
|