Capability of emergency departments to provide physician-based prehospital critical care teams

Abstract

It is with great interest that we read the correspondence of Dr Cheng and colleagues commenting on our work [1].We would like to respond to their queries as follows: first, we stated in the methods section of our paper 'The participants had standard training in airway management during the course of their study including use of supraglottic devices (including ILMA) and intubation with MCL, AirTraq and other videolaryngoscopes'. Therefore, in our opinion, the participants were equally proficient with each tested airway device [1].Second, we wrote in the discussion section of our paper 'In our study such a short time to effective intubation through ILMA was achieved because the participants were supposed to intubate immediately, not ventilate before intubation (we simulated situation when entrapped patient with face injury requires immediate intubation because of respiratory failure)'. Thus, the aim of our study was only to compare the time for intubation, not the insertion of intubating laryngeal mask (ILMA), ventilation, and intubation through it [1]. It is obvious that any comparison of the time of intubation with a standard laryngoscope and the time of the complete procedure of ILMA insertion is pointless. The procedure of insertion of ILMA will always be significantly longer than intubation with a Macintosh laryngoscope.Third, we must admit that we did not specify the type of King Vision blade. We used a standard blade without a tube channel. This type of blade allows for the use of an intubation stylet that is recommended in cases of emergency airway management in out-of-hospital settings [2]. We would like to thank Dr Cheng once more for the comments on our work.