Comparison of Glidescope® with the Macintosh blade in intubation without interruption of chest compressions: A manikin study

Abstract

Purpose: The 2005 guidelines on Resuscitation emphasize on the importance of uninterrupted chest compressions in cardiac arrest (CA) victims. Rescuers should secure the victim’s airway at some point during CA. The purpose of the study was to compare the videolaryngoscope (Glidescope ® ) with the Macintosh blade in intubating the trachea with or without chest compressions in a manikin. Materials and methods: Forty-five medical school graduates with no previous experience in intubation were included in this study. The participants were tested in an ALS simulator (Laedral, Stavanger, Norway) in intubating a normal airway without chest compressions and in intubating a normal airway with continuous chest compressions. Chest compressions were delivered with the LUCASTM device. The success rate and the time to intubate the trachea were recorded. Results: All participants successfully intubated the trachea with both devices. In the “no compression” scenario, time to intubation with the Macintosh blade and the Glidescope® did not exhibit any statistical significance (Macintosh: 13.5 ± 2.3 s versus Glidescope®: 14.2 ± 3.1 s, p = NS). Intubation attempts were also not statistically significant with the use of either device. In the “compression” scenario, the time to intubation did not exhibit any significant difference between the 2 devices (Macintosh: 14.2 ± 3.2 s versus Glidescope ® : 13.2 ± 2.9 s, p = NS). However, significantly fewer intubation attempts were required with the Glidescope® compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope between the two groups (Table 1), Macintosh 5 participants versus Glidescope® 32 participants for the first attempt, p < 0.001.