Hannes Ecker1, Simone Kolvenbach1, Sebastian Stranz1, Holger Herff1, Wolfgang A Wetsch2. 1. University of Cologne, Medical Faculty, and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. 2. University of Cologne, Medical Faculty, and University Hospital Cologne, Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. wolfgang.wetsch@uk-koeln.de.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:Endotracheal intubation continues to be the gold standard for securing the airway in emergency situations. Difficult intubation is still a dreadful situation when securing the airway. OBJECTIVE: To compare VieScope with Glidescope and conventional Macintosh laryngoscopy (MAC) in a simulated difficult airway situation. METHODS: In this randomized controlled simulation trial, 35 anesthesiologists performedendotracheal intubation using VieScope, GlideScope and MAC in a randomized order on a certified airway manikin with difficult airway. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint of correct tube position, no statistical difference was found (p = 0.137). Time until intubation for GlideScope (27.5 ± 20.3 s) and MAC (20.8 ± 8.1 s) were shorter compared to the VieScope (36.3 ± 10.1 s). Time to first ventilation, GlideScope (39.3 ± 21.6 s) and MAC (31.9 ± 9.5 s) were also shorter compared to the VieScope (46.5 ± 12.4 s). There was no difference shown between handling time for VieScope (20.7 ± 7.0 s) and time until intubation with GlideScope or MAC. Participants stated a better Cormack & Lehane Score with VieScope, compared to direct laryngoscopy. CONCLUSION:Rate of correct tracheal tube position was comparable between the three devices. Time to intubation and ventilation were shorter with MAC and Glidescope compared to VieScope. It did however show a comparable handling time to video laryngoscopy and MAC. It also did show a better visualization of the airway in the Cormack & Lehane Score compared to MAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Identifier: DRKS00024968 ) on March 31st 2021.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation continues to be the gold standard for securing the airway in emergency situations. Difficult intubation is still a dreadful situation when securing the airway. OBJECTIVE: To compare VieScope with Glidescope and conventional Macintosh laryngoscopy (MAC) in a simulated difficult airway situation. METHODS: In this randomized controlled simulation trial, 35 anesthesiologists performed endotracheal intubation using VieScope, GlideScope and MAC in a randomized order on a certified airway manikin with difficult airway. RESULTS: For the primary endpoint of correct tube position, no statistical difference was found (p = 0.137). Time until intubation for GlideScope (27.5 ± 20.3 s) and MAC (20.8 ± 8.1 s) were shorter compared to the VieScope (36.3 ± 10.1 s). Time to first ventilation, GlideScope (39.3 ± 21.6 s) and MAC (31.9 ± 9.5 s) were also shorter compared to the VieScope (46.5 ± 12.4 s). There was no difference shown between handling time for VieScope (20.7 ± 7.0 s) and time until intubation with GlideScope or MAC. Participants stated a better Cormack & Lehane Score with VieScope, compared to direct laryngoscopy. CONCLUSION: Rate of correct tracheal tube position was comparable between the three devices. Time to intubation and ventilation were shorter with MAC and Glidescope compared to VieScope. It did however show a comparable handling time to video laryngoscopy and MAC. It also did show a better visualization of the airway in the Cormack & Lehane Score compared to MAC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Identifier: DRKS00024968 ) on March 31st 2021.
Authors: Wolfgang A Wetsch; Oliver Spelten; Martin Hellmich; Martin Carlitscheck; Stephan A Padosch; Heiko Lier; Bernd W Böttiger; Jochen Hinkelbein Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Charles D Deakin; Jerry P Nolan; Jasmeet Soar; Kjetil Sunde; Rudolph W Koster; Gary B Smith; Gavin D Perkins Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Georges L Savoldelli; Eduardo Schiffer; Christoph Abegg; Vincent Baeriswyl; François Clergue; Jean-Luc Waeber Journal: Eur J Anaesthesiol Date: 2009-07 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Thomas Mitterlechner; Nicolas Nerbl; Holger Herff; Peter Paal; Martin Moritz; Frank Kloss; Karl H Lindner; Volker Wenzel Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Martin Petzoldt; Yasmin Engels; Zohal Popal; Pischtaz A Tariparast; Phillip B Sasu; Andrés Brockmann; Mark A Punke; Jörn Grensemann Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-03-15