Intubation Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use of Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy While Wearing HazMat PPE: A Preliminary High-fidelity Mannequin Study

Aberle, Sara J.; Sandefur, Benjamin J.; Sunga, Kharmene L.; Campbell, Ronna L.; Lohse, Christine M.; Puls, Henrique Alecastro; Laudon, Sarah; Sztajnkrycer, Matthew D.

doi:10.1017/s1049023x15004707

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present survey, we showed that the Airtraq is superior in terms of visualizing the glottis and the vocal cords. In a mannequin study involving post-graduate year emergency medicine residents, Aberle et al showed that video laryngoscope with GlideScope had a higher perceived ease of use, but that traditional direct laryngoscopy was perceived to be more feasible for use in CBRN conditions [ 26 ]. Similarly, our study does not show better evaluation for the insertion of the probe in oropharyngeal cavity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Miller and Airtraq laryngoscopes for orotracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN protective equipment during infant resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study

Claret

Asencio

Rogier

et al. 2016

Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of orotracheal intubation with the Miller laryngoscope compared with the Airtraq laryngoscope by emergency and pediatric physicians wearing CBRN-PPE type III on infant manikins with conventional airway. We hypothesized that in this situation, the orotracheal intubation with the Airtraq laryngoscope would be faster and more effective than with the Miller laryngoscope.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center study who recruited emergency department physicians on a voluntary basis. Each physician performed a total of 20 intubation trials while in CBRN-PPE with the two intubation techniques, Miller and Airtraq. Intubations by each airway device were tested over ten consecutive runs. The order of use of one or the other devices was randomized with a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint was overall orotracheal intubation success.ResultsFifty-five emergency and pediatric physicians were assessed for eligibility. Forty-one physicians were included in this study and 820 orotracheal intubation attempts were performed. The orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller (99 % vs. 92 %; p-adjusted <.001). The orotracheal intubation and glottis visualization times decreased with the number of attempts (p <.001). The median orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope (15 s vs. 20 s; p-adjusted <.001). The median glottis visualization time with the Airtraq laryngoscope and with the Miller laryngoscope were not different (6.0 s vs. 7.5 s; p-adjusted =.237). Thirty-four (83 %) physicians preferred the Airtraq laryngoscope versus 6 (15 %) for the Miller (p-adjusted <.001).DiscussionFor tracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN-PPE during infant resuscitation simulation, we showed that the orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller laryngoscope and that orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope.ConclusionsIt seems useful to train the physicians in emergency departments in the use of pediatric Airtraq and for the management of CBRN risks.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Miller and Airtraq laryngoscopes for orotracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN protective equipment during infant resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study

Claret

Asencio

Rogier

et al. 2016

Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A supraglottic airway can be a faster way to establish an airway while in PPE or during difficult intubations, but it should be replaced by an endotracheal tube when deemed safe [45]. There is no difference in intubation times when comparing direct laryngoscopy to video laryngoscopy while wearing PPE; both intubating techniques are reasonable choices [46,47]. The intubating instrument should be chosen based on provider preference, equipment availability, and the clinical picture.…”

Section: Airway Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergency Preparedness and Mass Casualty Considerations for Anesthesiologists

Kuza

McIsaac

2018

Advances in Anesthesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Aberle et al [11] have compared DL and GL while wearing PPE, using mannequins as subjects, but concluded that there was no difference in the time required for endotracheal intubation or in the ease of use. Moreover, Shin et al [12] compared DL and the Pentax-Airwayscope (AWS, Pentax Corporation, Japan), which is a type of portable video laryngoscope, while wearing or not wearing PPE, and using mannequins as subjects.…”

Section: Case Reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

The experience of endotracheal intubation in Middle East respiratory syndrome patients -A case report-

Kwon

Kim

et al. 2017

Anesth Pain Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intubation Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use of Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy While Wearing HazMat PPE: A Preliminary High-fidelity Mannequin Study

Cited by 12 publications

References 34 publications

Comparison of Miller and Airtraq laryngoscopes for orotracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN protective equipment during infant resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study

Comparison of Miller and Airtraq laryngoscopes for orotracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN protective equipment during infant resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study

Emergency Preparedness and Mass Casualty Considerations for Anesthesiologists

The experience of endotracheal intubation in Middle East respiratory syndrome patients -A case report-

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About