Journal of anesthesia · 2011
Comparison of Pentax-AWS Airwayscope video laryngoscope, Airtraq optic laryngoscope, and Macintosh laryngoscope during cardiopulmonary resuscitation under cervical stabilization: a manikin study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Komasawa Nobuyasu, Ueki Ryusuke, Kohama Hanako, Nishi Shin-ichi, Kaminoh Yoshiroh
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The 2010 American Heart Association or European Resuscitation Council guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation emphasize that rescuers should minimize interruption of chest compressions, even for endotracheal intubation. Cervical stabilization should also be maintained during traumatic cardiac arrest. The utility of the Pentax-AWS Airwayscope (AWS) video laryngoscope and Airtraq (ATQ) optic laryngoscope for airway management has been reported under cervical stabilization. We first evaluated ATQ utility during chest compression with or without cervical stabilization and then compared the AWS, ATQ, and Macintosh laryngoscope (McL) during chest compressions under cervical stabilization in a manikin.
METHODS: In the first trial, 19 novice doctors performed tracheal intubation with ATQ during chest compression with or without cervical stabilization. In the second trial, 21 novice doctors performed tracheal intubation on a manikin with cervical stabilization using AWS, ATQ, and McL with or without chest compression in a manikin. The rate of successful intubation, time to intubation, and subjective difficulty of use (visual analog scale) were recorded.
RESULTS: In the first trial, intubation time during chest compression was significantly shortened under cervical stabilization compared to without cervical stabilization (P < 0.05). In the second trial, using McL, 3 participants failed to perform tracheal intubation without chest compression and 11 failed during chest compression (P < 0.05). Using ATQ, all intubations were successful without chest compression, but 5 failed during chest compression (P < 0.05). Intubation time was significantly prolonged by chest compression using McL or ATQ (P < 0.05). All participants successfully secured the airway with AWS regardless of chest compression, and chest compression did not prolong intubation time. Chest compression worsened the score on the visual analog scale of laryngoscopy in the McL trial (P < 0.05), but not in ATQ or AWS trials. Difficulty of tube passage through the glottis increased with chest compression with the McL and ATQ (P < 0.05) but not with AWS.
CONCLUSION: The AWS was superior to McL and ATQ for endotracheal intubation during simulated cervical stabilization and chest compression.
METHODS: In the first trial, 19 novice doctors performed tracheal intubation with ATQ during chest compression with or without cervical stabilization. In the second trial, 21 novice doctors performed tracheal intubation on a manikin with cervical stabilization using AWS, ATQ, and McL with or without chest compression in a manikin. The rate of successful intubation, time to intubation, and subjective difficulty of use (visual analog scale) were recorded.
RESULTS: In the first trial, intubation time during chest compression was significantly shortened under cervical stabilization compared to without cervical stabilization (P < 0.05). In the second trial, using McL, 3 participants failed to perform tracheal intubation without chest compression and 11 failed during chest compression (P < 0.05). Using ATQ, all intubations were successful without chest compression, but 5 failed during chest compression (P < 0.05). Intubation time was significantly prolonged by chest compression using McL or ATQ (P < 0.05). All participants successfully secured the airway with AWS regardless of chest compression, and chest compression did not prolong intubation time. Chest compression worsened the score on the visual analog scale of laryngoscopy in the McL trial (P < 0.05), but not in ATQ or AWS trials. Difficulty of tube passage through the glottis increased with chest compression with the McL and ATQ (P < 0.05) but not with AWS.
CONCLUSION: The AWS was superior to McL and ATQ for endotracheal intubation during simulated cervical stabilization and chest compression.