Comparison of 3 video laryngoscopes against the Miller laryngoscope for tracheal intubation during infant resuscitation

Airtraq Laryngoscope Versus the Conventional Macintosh Laryngoscope During Pediatric Intubation Performed by Nurses: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study With Three Airway Scenarios

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesized that the Airtraq laryngoscope (Airtraq LLC, Bonita Springs, Fla) is beneficial for intubation of pediatric manikins while performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). In the present study, we evaluated the effectiveness of the Macintosh (MAC) laryngoscope (HEINE Optotechnik, Munich, Germany) and Airtraq in 3 simulated CPR scenarios.

METHODS

A randomized crossover simulation trial was designed. Eighty-three nurses intubated the trachea of a PediaSIM CPR training manikin (FCAE HealthCare, Sarasota, Fla) using the MAC and Airtraq in a normal airway scenario, normal airway with chest compression scenario, and difficult airway with chest compression scenario. The participants were directed to perform a maximum of 3 attempts in each scenario. The success rate, time to intubation, Cormack & Lehane grade, dental compression, and the ease of intubation were measured.

RESULTS

All participants performed successful intubation with the Airtraq in all 3 scenarios. In all scenarios, the success rate was significantly higher and the time to intubation was significantly shorter with the Airtraq than with the MAC. Glottic visualization using the Cormack-Lehane scale was also better when using Airtraq in all scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

In this manikin study, we found that the Airtraq can be used successfully for the intubation of pediatric manikins with normal and difficult airways by medical staff without previous experience in pediatric intubation. Moreover, intubation can be achieved without interrupting chest compression. The use of the Airtraq compared with the MAC led to faster time to intubation. Nevertheless, we recommend that the performance of the Airtraq and the MAC during CPR should be further evaluated in a clinical setting.

A comparison of the McGrath-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for child tracheal intubation during resuscitation by paramedics. A randomized, crossover, manikin study

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital tracheal intubation by paramedics during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in children is challenging. The potential role of new intubation devices during CPR is unclear. Our objective was to assess the impact of CPR (with and without chest compressions [CCs]) on the success and time to intubation (TTI) with the Macintosh laryngoscope vs the McGrath video laryngoscope on a pediatric manikin.

METHODS

This was an open, prospective, randomized, crossover, manikin trial involving 95 paramedics who performed intubations in a PediaSIM pediatric high-fidelity manikin with Macintosh and McGrath laryngoscopes, with and without concomitant mechanical CCs. Primary outcome was the TTI, and secondary outcome was success of the attempt. Participants rated their best glottic view, the severity of the potential dental trauma, and subjective opinion about the difficulty of the procedure.

RESULTS

The median TTI with the Macintosh in the scenario with uninterrupted CC was 33 (interquartile range [IQR], 24-36) seconds, which is significantly longer than TTI in the scenario with interrupted CC (23 [IQR, 20-29] seconds, P < .001). Time to intubation using the McGrath was similar in both scenarios: 20 (IQR, 17-23) seconds vs 19.5 (IQR, 17-22) seconds (P = .083). A statistically significant difference between McGrath and Macintosh was noticed in TTI both in scenario with (P < .001) and without CC (P = .017).

CONCLUSIONS

McGrath video laryngoscope helps paramedics to intubate a pediatric manikin in a CPR scenario in less time and with fewer attempts than with the classical Macintosh, both in case of ongoing or stopped CC. McGrath use in actual patients could improve CPR quality by paramedics.

Video rigid flexing laryngoscope (RIFL) vs Miller laryngoscope for tracheal intubation during pediatric resuscitation by paramedics: a simulation study

OBJECTIVES

Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is an essential resuscitation procedure in children. Video laryngoscopes have been developed to avoid intubation failures in a variety of scenarios, including cardiopulmonary resuscitation. We hypothesized that the video laryngoscope RIFL (AI Medical Devices, Inc, Williamston, MI) offers advantages in the ETI of a pediatric manikin while performing chest compressions (CCs).

METHODS

Randomized nonblinded crossover simulation trial conducted among 132 paramedics with no prior experience with RIFL. Each participant performed intubations with Miller (MIL; Mercury Medical, Clearwater, FL) laryngoscope and RIFL in a PediaSIM CPR training manikin (FCAE HealthCare, Sarasota, FL) in 3 airway scenarios: (a) normal airway at rest (without concomitant CC), (b) normal airway with mechanically controlled CC, and (c) difficult airway with concomitant CC. The primary outcome was the time to intubation, and secondary one was the success of the intubation attempt.

RESULTS

In the manikin at rest with normal airway, nearly all participants performed successful ETI both with MIL and RIFL, with similar intubation times. However, in the other scenarios (normal and difficult airway with uninterrupted CC), the results with RIFL were significantly better than with MIL (P < .05) for all the analyzed variables (success of first attempt, overall success rate, time to intubation, Cormac-Lehane grade, dental compression, and easy of intubation scores).

CONCLUSIONS

In simulated child arrest scenarios with normal/difficult airway conditions and with concomitant mechanical CC, paramedics performed better with the RIFL video laryngoscope than with the standard MIL.

Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial

The aim of the study was to compare the intubation times and success rates of various laryngoscopes during resuscitation in pediatric emergency intubation with uninterrupted chest compression on a standardized pediatric manikin model. This was a randomized crossover study with 107 paramedic participants. We compared times to successful intubation, intubation success rates, and glottic visibility using a Cormack-Lehane grade for Macintosh, Intubrite®, Coopdech®, and Copilot® laryngoscopes. One hundred seven paramedics (mean age 31.2 ± 7.5 years) routinely involved in the management of prehospital care participated in this study. Intubation success rates (overall effectiveness), which was the primary study endpoint, were highest for the Coopdech® and CoPilot® devices (100 %) and were lowest for Intubrite® (89.7 %, p < 0.001) and Macintosh (80.4 %, p < 0.001). The secondary study endpoint, time to first effective ventilation, was achieved fastest when using the Coopdech® laryngoscope (21.6 ± 6.2 s) and was significantly slower with all other devices (Intubrite® 25.4 ± 10.5 s, p = 0.006; CoPilot® 25.6 ± 7.4 s, p = 0.007; Macintosh 29.4 ± 8.2 s, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

We conclude that in child simulations managed by paramedics, the Coopdech® and Copilot® video laryngoscopes performed better than the standard Macintosh or Intubrite® laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation during child chest compression.