Intubation with channeled versus non-channeled video laryngoscopes in simulated difficult airway by junior doctors in an out-of-hospital setting: A crossover manikin study


Autoři: Shi Hao Chew aff001;  Jonathan Zhao Min Lim aff001;  Benjamin Zhao Bin Chin aff001;  Jia Xin Chan aff001;  Raymond Chern Hwee Siew aff003
Působiště autorů: Department of Anaesthesia, National University Hospital, Singapore aff001;  Headquarters Army Medical Services, Singapore Armed Forces, Singapore aff002;  RS Anaesthesia & Intensive Care, Singapore aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(10)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224017

Souhrn

Failure to secure the airway is an important cause of morbidity and mortality during resuscitations. We compared the rate of successful intubation of the King Vision aBlade channeled and non-channeled video laryngoscopes, and McGRATH MAC video laryngoscope when used by junior doctors to intubate a simulated difficult airway in an out-of-hospital setting. 105 junior doctors were recruited in a crossover study to perform tracheal intubation with the three video laryngoscopes on a simulated difficult airway using the SimMan® 3G manikin. Primary outcome was the rate of successful intubations. Secondary outcomes were time-to-visualization, time-to-intubation and ease of use. Rates of successful intubations were higher for King Vision channeled and McGrath compared to the King Vision non-channeled (85.7% and 82.9% respectively versus 24.8%; p<0.001). Amongst the participants who had successful intubations, King Vision channeled and McGrath had shorter mean time-to-intubation compared to the King Vision non-channeled (41.3±20.3s and 38.5±18.7s respectively versus 53.8±23.8s, p<0.004;). There was no significant difference in the rate of successful intubation and mean time-to-intubation between King Vision channeled and McGrath. The King Vision channeled and McGrath video laryngoscopes demonstrated superior intubation success rates compared to King Vision non-channeled laryngoscope when used by junior doctors for intubating simulated difficult airway in an out-of-hospital setting. We postulated that the presence of a guidance channel in the King Vision channeled laryngoscope and the familiarity of the blade curvature and handling of the McGrath could have accounted for their improved intubation success rates.

Klíčová slova:

Edema – Face recognition – Intubation – Medical doctors – Morbidity – Pilot studies – Resuscitation – Tongue


Zdroje

1. Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2004; 99: 607–613.

2. Martin LD, Mhyre JM, Shanks AM, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S. 3,423 emergency tracheal intubations at a university hospital: airway outcomes and complications. Anesthesiology 2011; 114: 42–48. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318201c415 21150574

3. Vaida S, Budde A. Is it time for videolaryngoscopy to be the standard of care? Minerva Anestesiologica 2016; 82: 1–2. 26222394

4. Van Zundert A, Pieters B. Videolaryngoscopy: the new standard for intubation. Ten years’ experience. Minerva Anestesiologica 2015; 81: 1159–1162. 26339751

5. Piepho T, Fortmueller K, Heid FM, Schmidtmann I, Werner C, Noppens RR. Performance of the C-MAC video laryngoscope in patients after a limited glottic view using Macintosh laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 1101–1105. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06872.x 21883131

6. Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, Blitt CD, Connis RT, Nickinovich DG. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2013; 118: 251–270. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31827773b2 23364566

7. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, Mendonca C, Bhagrath R, Patel A, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2015; 115: 827–848. doi: 10.1093/bja/aev371 26556848

8. Law JA, Broemling N, Cooper RM, Drolet P, Duggan LV, Griesdale DE, et al. The difficult airway with recommendations for management—Part 1 –difficult tracheal intubation encountered in an unconscious/induced patient. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 2013; 60: 1089–1118. doi: 10.1007/s12630-013-0019-3 24132407

9. Cooper RM, Pacey JA, Bishop MJ, McCluskey SA. Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 2005; 52: 191–198. 15684262

10. Tang KC, Chiu JW, Low E. Airway and ventilatory equipment in field anesthesia: what’s new? Military Medicine 2004; 169: 342–348. doi: 10.7205/milmed.169.5.342 15185996

11. Pieters BM, Wilbers NE, Huijzer M, Winkens B, van Zundert AA. Comparison of seven videolaryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope in manikins by experienced and novice personnel. Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 556–564. doi: 10.1111/anae.13413 26973253

12. Okada D, Komasawa N, Fujiwara S, Minami T. Comparison of tube-guided and guideless videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation during chest compression in a manikin: a randomized crossover trial. Journal of Anesthesia 2015; 29: 331–337. doi: 10.1007/s00540-014-1936-1 25348686

13. Kleine-Brueggeney M, Greif R, Schoettker P, Savoldelli GL, Nabecker S, Theiler LG. Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2016; 116: 670–679. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew058 27106971

14. Akihisa Y, Maruyama K, Koyama Y, Yamada R, Ogura A, Andoh T. Comparison of intubation performance between the King Vision and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice personnel: a randomized, crossover manikin study. Journal of Anesthesia. 2014; 28: 51–57. doi: 10.1007/s00540-013-1666-9 23812581

15. de Pinho Martins M, Bastos AM, Fontes CL, Pinto Calcada ABC. Case report: tracheal intubation with King Vision in a patient with oral opening <1cm. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2014; 31: 270.

16. Foulds LT, McGuire BE, Shippey BJ. A randomised cross-over trial comparing the McGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with cervical spine immobilisation. Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 437–442. doi: 10.1111/anae.13384 26849094

17. Levitan RM, Heitz JW, Sweeney M, Cooper RM. The complexities of tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy and alternative intubation devices. Annals of Emergency Medidine 2011; 57: 240–247.

18. Randell T. Prediction of difficult intubation. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 1996; 40: 1016–1023. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1996.tb05620.x 8908216

19. Orebaugh SL. Difficult airway management in the emergency department. The Journal of Emergency Medicine 2002; 22: 31–48. doi: 10.1016/s0736-4679(01)00435-8 11809554

20. Alvis BD, Hester D, Watson D, Higgins M, St Jacques P. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath MAC video laryngoscope with the King Vision video laryngoscope in adult patients. Minerva Anestesiologica 2016; 82: 30–35. 25881731

21. Herbstreit F, Fassbender P, Haberl H, Kehren C, Peters J. Learning endotracheal intubation using a novel videolaryngoscope improves intubation skills of medical students. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2011; 113: 586–590.

22. Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016; 11: CD011136. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub2 27844477

23. Gawlowski P, Iskrzycki L. Comparison of the KingVision video laryngoscope to the Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation of patient with cervical spine immobilization using extrication collars. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2017; 35: 657–658. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.12.064 28057379

24. Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Schofield-Robinson OJ, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation: a Cochrane Systematic Review. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2017; 119: 369–383. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex228 28969318

25. Escott MEA, Gleisberg GR, Gillum L, Cosper J, Traynor KM, Aulbert L, et al. Deploying the video laryngoscope into a ground EMS system. Journal of Emergency Medical Services 2014; August: 34–39

26. Gaszynska E, Samsel P, Stankiewicz-Rudnicki M, Wieczorek A, Gaszynski T. Intubation by paramedics using the ILMA or AirTraq, King Vision, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in vehicle-entrapped patients: a manikin study. European Journal of Emergency Medicine 2014; 21: 61–64. 23778270

27. Gawlowski P, Smereka J, Madziala M, Cohen B, Ruetzler K, Szarpak L. Comparison of the ETView Single Lumen and Macintosh laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation in an airway manikin with immobilized cervical spine by novice paramedics: A randomized crossover manikin trial. Medicine 2017; 96: 1–6.

28. Szarpak Ł, Truszewski Z, Smereka J, Evrin T, Czyzewski Ł. Are paramedics able to perform endotracheal intubation with access to the patient through the back seat of the car? Randomized crossover manikin study. The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2016; 34: 1161–1163. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2016.02.062 27079500

29. Gaszynska E, Gaszynski T. The King Vision™ video laryngoscope for awake intubation: series of cases and literature review. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 2014; 10: 475–478. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S64638 25018634


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 10