Hostname: page-component-669899f699-7tmb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T04:14:09.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Paramedic First Pass Endotracheal Intubation Success Rate of the VividTrac VT-A 100, GlideScope Ranger, and Direct Laryngoscopy Under Simulated Prehospital Cervical Spinal Immobilization Conditions in a Cadaveric Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 August 2017

Ryan Hodnick ,
Tony Zitek ,
Kellen Galster ,
Stephen Johnson ,
Bryan Bledsoe  and
Daniel Ebbs
Ryan Hodnick*
Affiliation:
Santa Fe Fire Department, Santa Fe, New MexicoUSA Santa Fe County Fire EMS, Santa Fe, New MexicoUSA Arteria Fire Department, Artesia, New MexicoUSA Carlsbad Fire Department, Carlsbad, New MexicoUSA TriState CareFlight, Bullhead City, ArizonaUSA MedFlight, Albuquerque, New MexicoUSA University of Nevada Department of Emergency Medicine, Las Vegas, NevadaUSA
Tony Zitek
Affiliation:
University of Nevada Department of Emergency Medicine, Las Vegas, NevadaUSA
Kellen Galster
Affiliation:
University of Nevada Department of Emergency Medicine, Las Vegas, NevadaUSA
Stephen Johnson
Affiliation:
Medic West Ambulance, Las Vegas, NevadaUSA
Bryan Bledsoe
Affiliation:
University of Nevada Department of Emergency Medicine, Las Vegas, NevadaUSA Medic West Ambulance, Las Vegas, NevadaUSA
Daniel Ebbs
Affiliation:
A.T. Still School of Osteopathic Medicine, Mesa, ArizonaUSA
*
Correspondence: Ryan Hodnick, DO, NREMT-P University of Nevada School of Medicine Department of Emergency Medicine 901 Rancho Lane, Suite 135 Las Vegas, Nevada 89106 USA E-mail: lasvegas.em@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

The primary goal of this study was to compare paramedic first pass success rate between two different video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy (DL) under simulated prehospital conditions in a cadaveric model.

Methods

This was a non-randomized, group-controlled trial in which five non-embalmed, non-frozen cadavers were intubated under prehospital spinal immobilization conditions using DL and with both the GlideScope Ranger (GL; Verathon Inc, Bothell, Washington USA) and the VividTrac VT-A100 (VT; Vivid Medical, Palo Alto, California USA). Participants had to intubate each cadaver with each of the three devices (DL, GL, or VT) in a randomly assigned order. Paramedics were given 31 seconds for an intubation attempt and a maximum of three attempts per device to successfully intubate each cadaver. Confirmation of successful endotracheal intubation (ETI) was confirmed by one of the six on-site physicians.

Results

Successful ETI within three attempts across all devices occurred 99.5% of the time overall and individually 98.5% of the time for VT, 100.0% of the time for GL, and 100.0% of the time for DL. First pass success overall was 64.4%. Individually, first pass success was 60.0% for VT, 68.8% for GL, and 64.5% for DL. A chi-square test revealed no statistically significant difference amongst the three devices for first pass success rates (P=.583). Average time to successful intubation was 42.2 seconds for VT, 38.0 seconds for GL, and 33.7 for seconds for DL. The average number of intubation attempts for each device were as follows: 1.48 for VT, 1.40 for GL, and 1.42 for DL.

Conclusion

The was no statistically significant difference in first pass or overall successful ETI rates between DL and video laryngoscopy (VL) with either the GL or VT (adult).

HodnickR, ZitekT, GalsterK, JohnsonS, BledsoeB, EbbsD. A Comparison of Paramedic First Pass Endotracheal Intubation Success Rate of the VividTrac VT-A 100, GlideScope Ranger, and Direct Laryngoscopy Under Simulated Prehospital Cervical Spinal Immobilization Conditions in a Cadaveric Model. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(6):621–624.

Keywords

airway managementEmergency Medical Servicesintubationparamedicsprehospitalspinal immobilizationvideo laryngoscope
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 32 , Issue 6 , December 2017 , pp. 621 - 624
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest/funding: Funding for the study was provided by the Valente Fund, University of New Mexico (Albuquerque, New Mexico USA), Department of Emergency Medicine; author RH was associated with the University at the time of the study but is no longer with them. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Wang, HE, Seitz, SR, Hostler, DP, Yealy, DM. Defining the learning curve for paramedic student endotracheal intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2005;9(2):156-162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Wang, HE, Yealy, DM. How many attempts are required to accomplish out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation? Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13(4):372-377.Google Scholar
3. Wang, HE, Yealy, DM. Out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation: where are we? Ann Emerg Med. 2006;47(6):532-541.Google Scholar
4. Cooper, RM, Pacey, JA, Bishop, MJ, McClusky, SA. Early clinical experience with a new video laryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52(2):191-198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Su, YC, Chen, CC, Lee, YK, Lee, JY, Lin, KJ. Comparison of video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28(11):788-795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. 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
7. Mosier, JM, Stolz, U, Chiu, S, Sakles, JC. Difficult airway management in the emergency department: GlideScope video laryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy. J Emerg Med. 2012;42(6):629-634.Google Scholar
8. Sakles, JC, Mosier, J, Chiu, S, Cosentino, M, Kalin, L. A comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(6):739-748.Google Scholar
9. Wayne, MA, McDonnell, M. Comparison of traditional versus video laryngoscopy in out-of-hospital tracheal intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(2):278-282.Google Scholar
10. Guyette, F, Farrell, K, Carlson, JN, Callaway, CW, Phrampus, P. Comparison of video laryngoscopy in a critical care transport service. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2003;17(2):111-162.Google Scholar
11. Burnett, A, Fransconec, R, Wewerka, S, et al. Comparison of success rates between two video laryngoscope systems used in a prehospital clinical trial. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18(2):231-238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Jarvis, J, McClure, S, John, D. EMS intubation improves with King Vision video laryngoscopy. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19(4):482-489.Google Scholar
13. Yeatts, DJ, Dutton, RP, Hu, PF, et al. Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: a randomized controlled trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75(2):212-219.Google Scholar
14. Cierniak, M, Timler, D, Wieczorek, A, Sekalski, P, Borkowska, N, Gaszynski, T. The comparison of the technical parameters in endotracheal intubation devices: the C-MAC, the Vividtrac, the McGrath Mac, and the KingVision. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30(4):379-387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed