The Airtraq Optical Laryngoscope in helicopter emergency medical services: a pilot trial

Intubation Performance of Advanced Airway Devices in a Helicopter Emergency Medical Service Setting

OBJECTIVE

This study attempts to determine if newer indirect laryngoscopes or intubating devices are superior to a standard laryngoscope for intubation success among helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) personnel.

METHODS

Flight nurses and paramedics intubated standardized mannequins with a normal airway, a trauma airway, and a difficult airway using a standard laryngoscope, a gum elastic bougie, the Airtraq laryngoscope (King System Corp, Noblesville, IN), the Glidescope Ranger laryngoscope (Verathon Inc, Bothell, WA), and the S.A.L.T. device (Microtek Medical, Inc, Lehmberg, IN) in grounded helicopters wearing helmets and flight gear. Participant demographics, time to glottic view, the modified Cormack-Lehane score, total intubation time, number of attempts, and overall successful intubation were recorded for each type of airway.

RESULTS

Two-hundred thirty-six subjects were initially enrolled across 107 bases in 15 states, and 177 completed the study. First-attempt success rates did not vary by device for the normal airway (P = .203), but the Airtraq laryngoscope and the S.A.L.T. device were highest in the difficult airway (82.0% and 85.0%, respectively; P < .0001). The time to first-attempt success in the difficult airway was lowest for the S.A.L.T. device and the Airtraq laryngoscope (mean = 9.72 seconds and 19.70 seconds, respectively; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Using HEMS providers, the Airtraq laryngoscope and the S.A.L.T. device showed the fastest and highest intubation success on the first attempt in difficult simulated HEMS airway scenarios.

Intubation of a Paediatric Manikin in Tongue Oedema and Face-to-Face Simulations by Novice Personnel: a Comparison of Glidescope, Airtraq and Direct Laryngoscopy

OBJECTIVE

Glidescope and Airtraq were designed for facilitating intubation and for teaching regarding the airway anatomy. We aimed to evaluate their efficacy in normal airway, tongue oedema and face-to-face orotracheal intubation models when used by novice personnel.

METHODS

After the local human research ethics committee approval, 36 medical students who were in the beginning of their third year were enrolled in this study. After watching a video regarding intubation using one of these devices, the students intubated a paediatric manikin with a Glidescope or Airtraq via the normal airway, tongue oedema and face-to-face approach.

RESULTS

Although the insertion and intubation times were similar among the groups, the intubation success rate of the Glidescope was higher in the normal airway (100% vs 67%) and tongue oedema (89% vs. 50%) compared with the Airtraq (p=0.008 and p=0.009). The success rates with the paediatric manikin by the face-to-face approach were similar among the groups (50%) (p=0.7). The need for manoeuvres in the Glidescope was lower in the normal and tongue oedema models (p=0.02 and p=0.002). In addition, oesophageal intubation was low in the control and tongue oedema models with the Glidescope (p=0.03 and p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Novice personnel could more easily intubate the trachea with the Glidescope than with the Airtraq. Intubation with the Glidescope was superior to that with the Airtraq in the normal and tongue oedema models. The face-to-face intubation success rates were both low with both the Glidescope and Airtraq groups.

Use of the Airtraq® device for airway management in the prehospital setting--a retrospective study

Background

Difficulties with prehospital intubations have encouraged the development of indirect laryngoscopy techniques, facilitating laryngeal visualization. Airtraq® is a relatively new single-use indirect laryngoscope. The Airtraq® has been evaluated in several prehospital mannequin intubation trials. However, prehospital clinical experience with the device is limited.

Methods

A retrospective medical chart review was performed for patients who underwent prehospital endotracheal intubation in the Stockholm County between January 2008 and December 2012. Both anaesthesiologists and nurse anaesthetists performed prehospital intubations during the study period. All Airtraq® intubations during this period were included in the analysis. The objective was to estimate the success rate of Airtraq® used in a prehospital setting.

Results

During the 5-year period (January 2008- December 2012), 2453 tracheal intubations were performed. Airtraq® was used in 28 cases (1%). The overall Airtraq® intubation success rate was 68%. Among patients with anticipated or unexpected difficult airway (23/28) the Airtraq® success rate was 61% (14/23). Among patients who underwent drug facilitated or rapid-sequence intubation protocols 4/5 (80%) were successfully intubated with Airtraq®.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this retrospective study showed a higher Airtraq® success rate than previous prospective prehospital trials. However, compared to other prehospital direct and indirect intubation methods the Airtraq success rate is low. Further clinical trials are necessary to evaluate the role of Airtraq® in the prehospital airway management.