The American journal of emergency medicine · 2013
Evaluation of the Storz CMAC®, Glidescope® GVL, AirTraq®, King LTS-D™, and direct laryngoscopy in a simulated difficult airway.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nelson Jessie G, Wewerka Sandi S, Woster Casey M, Burnett Aaron M, Salzman Joshua G, Frascone Ralph J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare first-attempt and overall success rates and success rates in relation to placement time among 5 different airway management devices: Storz CMAC, Glidescope GVL, AirTraq, King LTS-D, and direct laryngoscopy (DL).
METHODS: Emergency medical technician basic (EMT-B), EMT-paramedics (EMT-P), and emergency medicine residents and staff physicians placed each of the 5 devices in a random order into an AirSim (TruCorp, Belfast, UK) part-task training manikin. The difficult airway scenario was created by fixing the manikin head to a stationary object and introducing simulated emesis into the hypopharynx. First-attempt and overall success and success in relation to placement time were compared. Provider feedback about device performance was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Ninety-four providers (16 EMT-basics, 54 EMT-paramedics, and 24 emergency department doctors of medicine) consented to participation. First-attempt and overall success rates for DL, King LTS-D, GVL, and CMAC were not statistically different. Compared with DL, the AirTraq was 96% less likely to be placed successfully (odds ratio, 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.14). When time was factored into the model, the odds of successful placement of the King LTS-D were higher compared with DL (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.34-2.42) and lower for GVL (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80) and AirTraq (HR, 0.228; 95% CI, 0.16-0.325). Providers ranked the CMAC first in terms of performance and preference for use in their practice setting.
CONCLUSION: Overall success rates for DL, King-LTS-D, and both video laryngoscope systems were not different. When time was factored into the model, the King LTS-D was more likely to be placed successfully.
METHODS: Emergency medical technician basic (EMT-B), EMT-paramedics (EMT-P), and emergency medicine residents and staff physicians placed each of the 5 devices in a random order into an AirSim (TruCorp, Belfast, UK) part-task training manikin. The difficult airway scenario was created by fixing the manikin head to a stationary object and introducing simulated emesis into the hypopharynx. First-attempt and overall success and success in relation to placement time were compared. Provider feedback about device performance was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Ninety-four providers (16 EMT-basics, 54 EMT-paramedics, and 24 emergency department doctors of medicine) consented to participation. First-attempt and overall success rates for DL, King LTS-D, GVL, and CMAC were not statistically different. Compared with DL, the AirTraq was 96% less likely to be placed successfully (odds ratio, 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.14). When time was factored into the model, the odds of successful placement of the King LTS-D were higher compared with DL (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.34-2.42) and lower for GVL (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80) and AirTraq (HR, 0.228; 95% CI, 0.16-0.325). Providers ranked the CMAC first in terms of performance and preference for use in their practice setting.
CONCLUSION: Overall success rates for DL, King-LTS-D, and both video laryngoscope systems were not different. When time was factored into the model, the King LTS-D was more likely to be placed successfully.