Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T00:02:54.507Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Airway Management in Disaster Response: A Manikin Study Comparing Direct and Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation by Prehospital Providers in Level C Personal Protective Equipment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2017

Sami Yousif ,
Jason T. Machan ,
Yasser Alaska  and
Selim Suner
Sami Yousif*
Affiliation:
Emergency Medicine Department, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Jason T. Machan
Affiliation:
Lifespan Hospital System, Providence, Rhode IslandUSA The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode IslandUSA University of Rhode Island, Providence, Rhode IslandUSA
Yasser Alaska
Affiliation:
King Khalid University Hospital, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Selim Suner
Affiliation:
The Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, Providence, Rhode IslandUSA Department of Emergency Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, Rhode IslandUSA
*
Correspondence: Sami Yousif, MBBS, SBEM Emergency Medicine Department King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences King Abdullah International Medical Research Center P.O. Box 22490 Riyadh 11426 Saudi Arabia E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Airway management is one of many challenges that medical providers face in disaster response operations. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE), in particular, was found to be associated with higher failure rates and a prolonged time to achieve airway control.

Hypothesis/Problem

The objective of this study was to determine whether video laryngoscopy could facilitate the performance of endotracheal intubation by disaster responders wearing Level C PPE.

Methods

In this prospective, randomized, crossover study, a convenience sample of practicing prehospital providers were recruited. Following standardized training in PPE use and specific training in the use of airway devices, subjects in Level C PPE were observed while performing endotracheal intubation on a stock airway in a Laerdal Resusci-Anne manikin system (Laerdal Medical; Stavanger, Norway) using one of three laryngoscopic devices in randomized order: a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Welch Allyn Inc.; New York USA), a GlideScope Ranger video laryngoscope (Verathon Medical; Bothell, Washington USA), and a King Vision video laryngoscope (King Systems; Noblesville, Indiana USA). The primary outcome was time to intubation (TTI), and the secondary outcome was participant perception of the ease of use for each device.

Results

A total of 20 prehospital providers participated in the study: 18 (90%) paramedics and two (10%) Emergency Medical Technicians-Cardiac. Participants took significantly longer when using the GlideScope Ranger [35.82 seconds (95% CI, 32.24-39.80)] to achieve successful intubation than with the Macintosh laryngoscope [25.69 seconds (95% CI, 22.42-29.42); adj. P<.0001] or the King Vision [29.87 seconds (95% CI, 26.08-34.21); adj. P=.033], which did not significantly differ from each other (adj. P=.1017). Self-reported measures of satisfaction evaluated on a 0% to 100% visual analog scale (VAS) identified marginally greater subject satisfaction with the King Vision [86.7% (SD=76.4-92.9%)] over the GlideScope Ranger [73.0% (SD=61.9-81.8%); P=.04] and the Macintosh laryngoscope [69.9% (SD=57.9-79.7%); P=.05] prior to adjustment for multiplicity. The GlideScope Ranger and the Macintosh laryngoscope did not differ themselves (P=.65), and the differences were not statistically significant after adjustment for multiplicity (adj. P=.12 for both comparisons).

Conclusion

Use of video laryngoscopes by prehospital providers in Level C PPE did not result in faster endotracheal intubation than use of a Macintosh laryngoscope. The King Vision video laryngoscope, in particular, performed at least as well as the Macintosh laryngoscope and was reported to be easier to use.

YousifS, MachanJT, AlaskaY, SunerS. Airway Management in Disaster Response: A Manikin Study Comparing Direct and Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation by Prehospital Providers in Level C Personal Protective Equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(4):352–356.

Keywords

airwaydisasterpersonal protective equipment
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , August 2017 , pp. 352 - 356
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: none

References

1. Talmor, D. Airway management during a mass-casualty event. Respir Care. 2008;53(2):226-231; discussion 231.Google Scholar
2. Nozaki, H, Hori, S, Shinozawa, Y, et al. Secondary exposure of medical staff to sarin vapor in the emergency room. Intensive Care Med. 1995;21(12):1032-1035.Google Scholar
3. Fowler, RA, Guest, CB, Lapinsky, SE, et al. Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome during intubation and mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Car Med. 2004;169(11):1198-1202.Google Scholar
4. Brinker, A, Gray, SA, Schumacher, J. Influence of air-purifying respirators on the simulated first response emergency treatment of CBRN victims. Resuscitation. 2007;74(2):310-316.Google Scholar
5. Coates, MJ, Jundi, AS, James, MR. Chemical protective clothing; a study into the ability of staff to perform lifesaving procedures. J Accid Emerg Med. 2000;17(2):115-118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Castle, N, Owen, R, Hann, M, Clark, S, Reeves, D, Gurney, I. Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills. Resuscitation. 2009;80(11):1290-1295.Google Scholar
7. Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, Ben-Abraham, R, Rudick, V, Varssano, D, Weinbroum, AA. Antichemical protective gear prolongs time to successful airway management: a randomized, crossover study in humans. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(2):260-266.Google Scholar
8. Hendler, I, Nahtomi, O, Segal, E, Perel, A, Wiener, M, Meyerovitch, J. The effect of full protective gear on intubation performance by hospital medical personnel. Mil Med. 2000;165(4):272-274.Google Scholar
9. Goldik, Z, Bornstein, J, Eden, A, Ben-Abraham, R. Airway management by physicians wearing anti-chemical warfare gear: comparison between laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal intubation. Eur J Aaesthesiol. 2002;19(3):166-169.Google Scholar
10. Castle, N, Owen, R, Hann, M, Clark, S, Reeves, D, Gurney, I. Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills. Resuscitation. 2009;80(11):1290-1295.Google Scholar
11. Noppens, RR. Airway management in the intensive care unit. Acta Clinica Croatica. 2012;51(3):511-517.Google Scholar
12. Sakles, JC, Mosier, JM, Chiu, S, Keim, SM. Tracheal intubation in the emergency department: a comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy in 822 intubations. J Emerg Med. 2012;42(4):400-405.Google Scholar
13. Pirlich, N, Piepho, T, Gervais, H, Noppens, RR. [Indirect laryngoscopy/video laryngoscopy. A review of devices used in emergency and intensive care medicine in Germany]. Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin. 2012;107(7):521-530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Bjoernsen, LP, Lindsay, B. Video laryngoscopy in the prehospital setting. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2009;24(3):265-270.Google Scholar
15. Greenland, KB, Brown, AF. Evolving role of video laryngoscopy for airway management in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas. 2011;23(5):521-524.Google Scholar
16. Maharaj, CH, Costello, JF, Higgins, BD, Harte, BH, Laffey, JG. Learning and performance of tracheal intubation by novice personnel: a comparison of the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2006;61(7):671-677.Google Scholar
17. Griesdale, DE, Liu, D, McKinney, J, Choi, PT. GlideScope video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59(1):41-52.Google Scholar
18. Nasim, S, Maharaj, CH, Malik, MA, Higgins, J OD, Laffey, BD, , JG. Comparison of the GlideScope and Pentax AWS laryngoscopes to the Macintosh laryngoscope for use by advanced paramedics in easy and simulated difficult intubation. BMC Emerg Med. 2009;9:9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Maharaj, CH, McDonnell, JG, Harte, BH, Laffey, JG. A comparison of direct and indirect laryngoscopes and the ILMA in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(11):1161-1166.Google Scholar
20. Wang, HE, Szydlo, D, Stouffer, JA, et al. Endotracheal intubation versus supraglottic airway insertion in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2012;83(9):1061-1066.Google Scholar
21. Tanabe, S, Ogawa, T, Akahane, M, et al. Comparison of neurological outcome between tracheal intubation and supraglottic airway device insertion of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a nationwide, population-based, observational study. J Emerg Med. 2013;44(2):389-397.Google Scholar
22. Burns, JB Jr., Branson, R, Barnes, SL, Tsuei, BJ. Emergency airway placement by EMS providers: comparison between the King LT supralaryngeal airway and endotracheal intubation. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(1):92-95.Google Scholar
23. Teoh, WH, Shah, MK, Sia, AT. Randomized comparison of Pentax AirwayScope and GlideScope for tracheal intubation in patients with normal airway anatomy. Anaesthesia. 2009;64(10):1125-1129.Google Scholar
24. Kaki, AM, Almarakbi, WA, Fawzi, HM, Boker, AM. Use of Airtraq, C-Mac, and GlideScope laryngoscope is better than Macintosh in novice medical students’ hands: A manikin study. Saudi J Anaesth. 2011;5(4):376-381.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Yousif supplementary material

Appendix

Download Yousif supplementary material(File)
File 14.1 KB