A manikin study comparing the performance of the GlideScope®, the Airtraq® and the C-MAC® in endotracheal intubation using suction-assisted laryngoscopy airway decontamination techniques in a simulated massive haematemesis scenario by emergency doctors

Background:

The suction-assisted laryngoscopy and airway decontamination (SALAD) techniques (level 1, SALAD-1 and level 2, SALAD-2) are newly proposed airway management skills to facilitate endotracheal intubation in patients with massive haematemesis. A pilot study using GlideScope® demonstrated the superior performance of SALAD-1 technique in massive haematemesis simulation.

Objectives:

To compare the performance of three different video laryngoscopes (the GlideScope®, the Airtraq® and the C-MAC®) in endotracheal intubation using SALAD techniques by emergency doctors in a manikin simulating massive haematemesis.

Methods:

Forty-eight emergency doctors were recruited. The participants’ performance of endotracheal intubation using the GlideScope®, the Airtraq® and the C-MAC® with the conventional and the two SALAD techniques in a manikin simulating massive haematemesis was evaluated. The time for intubation, number of attempts, rate of failed intubation, amount of aspirated fluid and the subjective ease of different devices and techniques were compared.

Results:

The C-MAC® had shorter intubation time compared with GlideScope® when using conventional (mean intubation time: 28.48 vs 47.00 s, p = 0.018) and SALAD-1 technique (mean intubation time: 29.35 vs 43.25 s, p < 0.039). The intubation time of all three video laryngoscopes was similar in SALAD-2 technique. There was no significant difference in the number of attempts and failed intubation rate among different video laryngoscopes in using different techniques. Intubation with the C-MAC® resulted in the least mean amount of aspiration in all the conventional (35.63 mL), SALAD-1 (14.06 mL) and SALAD-2 (18.13 mL) techniques. However, the results were not significantly different from the GlideScope® and the Airtraq®. The C-MAC® was rated the most favourable video laryngoscope for the SALAD-1 technique (p < 0.001). There was no significant preference for different video laryngoscopes in using the SALAD-2 technique (p = 0.111).

Conclusion:

All the video laryngoscopes have similar intubation performance with the SALAD-1 and SALAD-2 techniques. The C-MAC® performed better than GlideScope® in terms of intubation time. The C-MAC® was the most favourable video laryngoscope for the SALAD-1 technique.

A pilot study on using Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy Airway Decontamination techniques to assist endotracheal intubation by GlideScope® in a manikin simulating massive hematemesis

Background:

The Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination techniques are newly designed emergency airway management skills to assist endotracheal intubation with the complementary use of suction catheters and video laryngoscopes in patients with severe vomiting or massive hematemesis.

Objectives:

To evaluate the performance of emergency department doctors in using the two Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination techniques (level 1 and level 2) to assist endotracheal intubation by GlideScope® in an airway manikin simulating massive hematemesis, the Nasco airway decontamination simulator.

Methods:

A total of 30 emergency department doctors were recruited in a pilot study. Their performance of using two levels of Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination techniques (Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination 1 and Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination 2) with two different suction catheters, the DuCanto suction catheter and Yankauer suction catheter, were compared with the conventional suction technique. The failed endotracheal intubation rates, time for intubation and number of attempts, amount of aspirated fluid, and the subjective ease of different methods by the participants were compared.

Results:

Irrespective the choice of suction catheter, endotracheal intubation in the manikin by using Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination 1 had the lowest failure rate which is much better than conventional suction technique (p = 0.012), smaller amount of aspiration compared with the conventional suction technique (p = 0.027), and comparable intubation time with the conventional suction technique (p = 0.850). Most participants were able to intubate the manikin successfully in the first attempt by Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination 1 with the DuCanto suction catheter, and they were of the opinion that such combination was the most preferred in performing endotracheal intubation.

Conclusion:

Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination 1 has the best performance in this manikin study, and Suction-Assisted Laryngoscopy and Airway Decontamination 1 with the DuCanto suction catheter was the most favorable method for endotracheal intubation in this manikin study by the participants.