Comparison of Success Rates between Two Video Laryngoscope Systems Used in a Prehospital Clinical Trial

Burnett, Aaron; Frascone, Ralph J.; Wewerka, Sandi S.; Kealey, Samantha E.; Evens, Zabrina N.; Griffith, Kent R.; Salzman, Joshua G.

doi:10.3109/10903127.2013.851309

Cited by 22 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The technique used with nondisplacing devices may be more foreign to experienced operators, require a different skill set, and contribute to the rapid drop-off seen in the Burnett et al paper. 19 We determined that we had to train our medics to consider intubating with the nondisplacing King Vision, to be a different skill than using DL. We instructed the paramedics to hold the device low down on the blade (Figure 3) rather than using the handle itself (Figure 4).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has a hyperacute, angled blade, similar to the GlideScope (Verathon Medical, Bothell, WA) device, which uses an indirect, nondisplacing intubating technique. Recently, several studies have evaluated its use, compared both with DL and with other VL devices, [16][17][18][19] again with mixed results. We identified poor intubation success using DL (64.9% overall success) during normal quality improvement efforts at a suburban EMS system.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

EMS Intubation Improves with King Vision Video Laryngoscopy

Jarvis¹,

McClure²,

Johns³

2015

Prehospital Emergency Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

EMS Intubation Improves with King Vision Video Laryngoscopy

Jarvis¹,

McClure²,

Johns³

2015

Prehospital Emergency Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A 2009 study comparing overall success rates for the GlideScope and C‐MAC video devices (both devices represented in this meta‐analysis) on simulated manikin airways found that the C‐MAC device was superior . In addition, a study by Burnett et al . showed that the C‐MAC device outperformed the King Vision device in both first‐pass success and overall success rates in a nonrandomized, controlled trial.…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Savino

Reichelderfer

Mercer

et al. 2017

Academic Emergency Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The use of video laryngoscopy (VL) for intubation has gained recent popularity. In the prehospital setting, it is unclear if VL increases intubation success rates compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL). We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing VL to DL in the prehospital setting to determine whether the use of VL increases overall and first-pass endotracheal intubation success rates compared to DL.Methods: A systematic search was performed of the PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS databases through May 2016 to include studies comparing overall and first-pass success for VL versus DL in patients requiring intubation in the prehospital setting. Data were abstracted by two reviewers. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results:Of a potential 472 articles, eight eligible studies were included. Considerable heterogeneity (I 2 > 90%) precluded reporting an overall pooled estimate across all studies. When stratified by provider type, the pooled estimates for overall intubation success using VL versus DL were a risk ratio (RR) of 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01-0.18) in studies of physicians and RR = 2.28 (95% CI = 1.00-5.20) in nonphysicians. For firstpass intubation success the pooled RR estimates for using VL versus DL were 0.32 (95% CI = 0.23-0.44) and 1.83 (95% CI = 1.18-2.84) among studies using physicians and nonphysicians, respectively. There was moderate to significant heterogeneity between studies when stratified by provider.Conclusions: Among physician intubators with significant DL experience, VL does not increase overall or firstpass success rates and may lead to worsening performance. However, among nonphysician intubators with less experience with DL, VL may provide benefit in the prehospital setting.

show abstract

“…as good as and may be situationally more effective than DL under unusual circumstances such as, entrapped patients with both normal and difficult airways [10,20,21]. Other potential uses and future studies include unexpected in-hospital code situations on ward beds, international travel emergencies, public arenas, disaster scenarios, and pre-hospital intubation.…”

Section: Journal Of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicinementioning

confidence: 99%

A Prospective Cohort Study Comparing Medical Student Intubation on Cadaveric and Manikin Models Using the King Vision™ Videolaryngoscope and Direct Laryngoscopy

Triplett¹

2016

JAICM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Compare intubation by medical students with direct laryngoscopy (DL) versus King Vision™ videolaryngoscope in training and cadaveric models.Methods: 24 medical students with no experience intubating humans were randomized into two groups: DL first or King Vision™ videolaryngoscope first. Following a short training, techniques were practiced ona manikin model. Intubation success, ease of use, and one timed manikin intubation was recorded. Students crossed, repeated training and trial with other technique. Students then intubated 3 cadavers with their initial technique, crossed over to intubate these same cadavers using their second technique. Cormack-Lehane (C-L) view of the glottic opening, time to intubation, intubation success, ease of use, and preferred technique were recorded. Results:In manikin intubation, success rate was not significantly different. Mean time to intubation using DL was 19.67 seconds, 11.03 seconds with King Vision™. The median "ease of use" for DL was 7; King Vision™ was 4 (0 easiest, 10 hardest). In cadaver model, the median C-L view was 2 for DL, 1 for King Vision™. Success rates were 82% for DL and 93% for King Vision™. The median "ease of use" for DL was 5 and King Vision™ was 4. Conclusion:The King Vision™ videolaryngoscope had statistically significant improved visualization of the glottic opening, intubation success rate when compared to DL, and was rated easier to use. Given the portable nature, low cost, ease of use, and easy maintenance; the King Vision™ videolaryngoscope should be considered an excellent device for intubation training orany emergent setting where advanced airway management is required.

show abstract

Comparison of Success Rates between Two Video Laryngoscope Systems Used in a Prehospital Clinical Trial

Abstract: The CMAC had a higher likelihood of successful intubation compared to the King Vision. Complication rates were not statistically different between groups. Video laryngoscope placement success rates were not higher than our historical direct laryngoscopy success rates.

Cited by 22 publications

References 12 publications

EMS Intubation Improves with King Vision Video Laryngoscopy

EMS Intubation Improves with King Vision Video Laryngoscopy

Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

A Prospective Cohort Study Comparing Medical Student Intubation on Cadaveric and Manikin Models Using the King Vision™ Videolaryngoscope and Direct Laryngoscopy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About