Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial

ETView SL versus Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation Amid Simulated COVID-19 Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Crossover Study

Airway management procedures, such as endotracheal intubation (ETI), pose a significant risk of aerosol generation, requiring robust personal protective equipment (PPE) against aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). This study aimed to assess the impact of PPE-AGP on intubation success rates, time to intubation, and glottic visualization using ETView and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). A total of 52 physicians participated in this prospective, observational, randomized crossover study conducted in a medical simulation setting. Participants included COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest scenarios with and without PPE-AGP who were intubated with ETView and MAC. During intubation without PPE-AGP, ETView showed a similar first-pass success rate (FPS) but had a shorter intubation time and better glottal hydration compared to MAC. In scenario B (with PPE-AGP), ETView outperformed MAC in FPS, initiation time, and glottic visualization. The use of PPE-AGP had little impact on ETView's performance. However, it negatively affected the Macintosh laryngoscope, reducing FPS and glottic visibility. Participants found intubation with ETView easier in both scenarios. In conclusion, as compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope, ETView demonstrated higher performance under the circumstances of the simulation, especially when PPE-AGP was used.

Comparison of Three Video Laryngoscopes and Direct Laryngoscopy for Emergency Endotracheal Intubation While Wearing PPE-AGP: A Randomized, Crossover, Simulation Trial

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated changes in the safety protocols of endotracheal intubation at every level of care. This study aimed to compare the first-pass success rates (FPS) and intubation times (IT) of three video laryngoscopes (VL) and direct laryngoscopy (DL) for simulated COVID-19 patient emergency intubation (EI). Methods: The study was a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty-three active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with the I-viewTM VL, UESCOPE® VL, ProVu® VL and Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) wearing personal protective equipment for aerosol-generating procedures (PPE-AGP) on a manikin with normal airway conditions. Results: The longest IT was noted when the UESCOPE® (29.4 s) and ProVu® (27.7 s) VL were used. The median IT for I-view was 17.4 s and for MAC DL 17.9 s. The FPS rates were 88.6%, 81.1%, 83.0% and 84.9%, respectively, for I-view, ProVu®, UESCOPE® and MAC DL. The difficulty of EI attempts showed a statistically significant difference between UESCOPE® and ProVu®. Conclusions: The intubation times performed by paramedics in PPE-AGP using UESCOPE® and ProVu® were significantly longer than those with the I-view and Macintosh laryngoscopes. The use of VL by prehospital providers in PPE did not result in more effective EI than the use of a Macintosh laryngoscope.

Endotracheal Intubation Using C-MAC Video Laryngoscope vs. Direct Laryngoscope While Wearing Personal Protective Equipment

This study sought to determine whether the C-MAC video laryngoscope (VL) performed better than a direct laryngoscope (DL) when attempting endotracheal intubation (ETI) in the emergency department (ED) while wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). This was a retrospective single-center observational study conducted in an academic ED between February 2020 and March 2022. All emergency medical personnel who participated in any ETI procedure were required to wear PPE. The patients were divided into the C-MAC VL group and the DL group based on the device used during the first ETI attempt. The primary outcome measure was the first-pass success (FPS) rate. A multiple logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with FPS. Of the 756 eligible patients, 650 were assigned to the C-MAC group and 106 to the DL group. The overall FPS rate was 83.5% (n = 631/756). The C-MAC group had a significantly higher FPS rate than the DL group (85.7% vs. 69.8%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, C-MAC use was significantly associated with an increased FPS rate (adjusted odds ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.69−4.08; p < 0.001). In this study, we found that the FPS rate of ETI was significantly higher when the C-MAC VL was used than when a DL was used by emergency physicians constrained by cumbersome PPE.

Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment

Background

Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).

Methods

Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded.

Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers.

Results

We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43–92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of −48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], −60.23, −35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608