Introduction Early endotracheal intubation improves neurological outcomes in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, although cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initially carried out by personnel with limited experience in a significant proportion of cases. Videolaryngoscopes might decrease the number of attempts and time needed, especially among novices. We sought to compare videolaryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopes in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenarios. Materials and methods Forty-four medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students executed endotracheal intubation with the King Vision®, Macintosh and VividTrac® laryngoscopes, on a cardiopulmonary resuscitation trainer in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma and user satisfaction. Results In the normal airway scenario, significantly shorter intubation times were achieved using the King Vision® than the Macintosh laryngoscope. In the difficult airway scenario, we found that the VividTrac® was superior to the King Vision® and Macintosh laryngoscopes in the laryngoscopy time. In both scenarios, we noted no difference in the first-attempt success rate, but the best view of the glottis and dental trauma, esophageal intubation and bougie use were more frequent with the Macintosh laryngoscope than with the videolaryngoscopes. The shortest tube insertion times were achieved using the King Vision® in both scenarios. Conclusion All providers achieved successful intubation within three attempts, but we found no device superior in any of our scenarios regarding the first-attempt success rate. The King Vision® was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope in the intubation time in the normal airway scenario and noninferior in the difficult airway scenario for novice users. We noted significantly less esophageal intubation using the videolaryngoscopes than using the Macintosh laryngoscope in both scenarios. Based on our results, the KingVision® might be recommended over the VividTrac® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for further evaluation.
Intraoperative stress is common to patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy (CEA); thus, impaired oxygen and metabolic balance may appear. In this study, we aimed to identify new markers of intraoperative cerebral ischemia, with predictive value on postoperative complications during CEA, performed in regional anesthesia. A total of 54 patients with significant carotid stenosis were recruited and submitted to CEA. Jugular and arterial blood samples were taken four times during operation, to measure the jugulo-arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure difference (P(j-a)CO2), and cortisol, S100B, L-arginine, and lactate levels. A positive correlation was found between preoperative cortisol levels and all S100B concentrations. In addition, they are positively correlated with P(j-a)CO2 values. Conversely, postoperative cortisol inversely correlates with P(j-a)CO2 and postoperative S100B values. A negative correlation was observed between maximum systolic and pulse pressures and P(j-a)CO2 after carotid clamp and before the release of clamp. Our data suggest that preoperative cortisol, S100B, L-arginine reflect patients’ frailty, while these parameters postoperatively are influenced by intraoperative stress and injury. As a novelty, P(j-a)CO2 might be an emerging indicator of cerebral blood flow during CEA.
Background: Successful early endotracheal intubation improves neurological outcomes in cardiopulmonary resuscitation. However, endotracheal intubation should not compromise cardiopulmonary resuscitation effectiveness and thus requires experience. The use of videolaryngoscopes might decrease the number of attempts as well as the time needed for intubation, especially among novice users. We sought to compare videolaryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenarios in mannequins by novices.Methods: Forty-four medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students were asked to execute endotracheal intubation with each of the devices, including the King Vision®, the Macintosh laryngoscope and the VividTrac®, on acardiopulmonary resuscitation trainer (Ambu Man Advanced®) in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and the proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma and user satisfaction.Results: In the normal airway scenario, significantly shorter intubation times (P < 0.05) were measured by King Vision®than by Macintosh laryngoscope. However, VividTrac® was proven to be similar (P > 0.05) to Macintosh laryngoscope in this regard in the normal airway scenario. In the difficult airway scenarios, we found VividTrac® superior (P < 0.05) to King Vision® and Macintosh laryngoscope regarding laryngoscopy times, but there were no significant differences between devices in intubation times. In both normal and difficult airway cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenarios, we noted no difference (P > 0.05) in first attempt success rates, the best view of the glottis and dental trauma, but esophageal intubation and the use of bougie were more frequent (P < 0.05) withMacintosh laryngoscopethan with videolaryngoscopes. The shortest tube insertion times were related to King Vision® in both scenarios.Conclusion: Based upon our results, King Vision®was superior to Macintosh laryngoscoperegarding intubation time in the normal airway cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenario for novice users. We noted significantly less esophageal intubationwhen using videolaryngoscopes compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in both scenarios; thus,videolaryngoscopes might be recommended for novice users for both cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenarios.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.