Ioannis Pantazopoulos1, Konstantina Kolonia2, Eleni Laou2, Maria Mermiri1, Vasiliki Tsolaki3, Anastasios Koutsovasilis4, Georgios Zakynthinos3, Konstantinos Gourgoulianis5, Eleni Arnaoutoglou2, Athanasios Chalkias2. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. 2. Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. 3. Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece. 4. Third Department of Internal Medicine, Nikaia General Hospital, Nikaia, Greece. 5. Department of Respiratory Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Thessaly, Larissa, Greece.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of video laryngoscopes by novice physicians may improve first-pass success rates compared with direct laryngoscopy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess whether time to intubation, number of laryngoscopy attempts, and first-pass success rate during laryngoscopy with the video laryngoscope or conventional Macintosh laryngoscope are affected by personal protective equipment (PPE) donning. METHODS:Seventy inexperienced physicians were randomly assigned to video laryngoscope or Macintosh groups and were instructed to perform intubation with both devices on a manikin, using PPE or a standard uniform. The primary outcomes were insertion time, number of laryngoscopy attempts, and first-pass success rates for each device with or without donning PPE. RESULTS: In the Macintosh group, significantly less time was needed for the first successful intubation without PPE vs. with PPE (12.17 ± 3.69 s vs. 24.07 ± 5.09 s, respectively; p < 0.0001). On the other hand, such difference was not observed in the video laryngoscope group (14.99 ± 3.01 s vs. 14.01 ± 3.35 s, respectively; p = 0.07). With PPE, the first-pass success rate was significantly higher in the video laryngoscope group [41 (58.6%) vs. 66 (94.3%), p < 0.001]. The use of the video laryngoscope resulted in a significant decrease in insertion time compared with the Macintosh blade (14.01 ± 3.35 s vs. 24.07 ± 5.09 s, respectively; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: First-pass success and insertion time with the video laryngoscope were not affected by PPE donning. However, both were negatively affected with the Macintosh laryngoscope.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The use of video laryngoscopes by novice physicians may improve first-pass success rates compared with direct laryngoscopy. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess whether time to intubation, number of laryngoscopy attempts, and first-pass success rate during laryngoscopy with the video laryngoscope or conventional Macintosh laryngoscope are affected by personal protective equipment (PPE) donning. METHODS: Seventy inexperienced physicians were randomly assigned to video laryngoscope or Macintosh groups and were instructed to perform intubation with both devices on a manikin, using PPE or a standard uniform. The primary outcomes were insertion time, number of laryngoscopy attempts, and first-pass success rates for each device with or without donning PPE. RESULTS: In the Macintosh group, significantly less time was needed for the first successful intubation without PPE vs. with PPE (12.17 ± 3.69 s vs. 24.07 ± 5.09 s, respectively; p < 0.0001). On the other hand, such difference was not observed in the video laryngoscope group (14.99 ± 3.01 s vs. 14.01 ± 3.35 s, respectively; p = 0.07). With PPE, the first-pass success rate was significantly higher in the video laryngoscope group [41 (58.6%) vs. 66 (94.3%), p < 0.001]. The use of the video laryngoscope resulted in a significant decrease in insertion time compared with the Macintosh blade (14.01 ± 3.35 s vs. 24.07 ± 5.09 s, respectively; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: First-pass success and insertion time with the video laryngoscope were not affected by PPE donning. However, both were negatively affected with the Macintosh laryngoscope.
Authors: Leszek Gadek; Lukasz Szarpak; Lars Konge; Marek Dabrowski; Dominika Telecka-Gadek; Maciej Maslanka; Wiktoria Laura Drela; Marta Jachowicz; Lukasz Iskrzycki; Szymon Bialka; Frank William Peacock; Jacek Smereka Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-12-08 Impact factor: 4.241