Abstract
BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of orotracheal intubation with the Miller laryngoscope compared with the Airtraq laryngoscope by emergency and pediatric physicians wearing CBRN-PPE type III on infant manikins with conventional airway. We hypothesized that in this situation, the orotracheal intubation with the Airtraq laryngoscope would be faster and more effective than with the Miller laryngoscope.MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center study who recruited emergency department physicians on a voluntary basis. Each physician performed a total of 20 intubation trials while in CBRN-PPE with the two intubation techniques, Miller and Airtraq. Intubations by each airway device were tested over ten consecutive runs. The order of use of one or the other devices was randomized with a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint was overall orotracheal intubation success.ResultsFifty-five emergency and pediatric physicians were assessed for eligibility. Forty-one physicians were included in this study and 820 orotracheal intubation attempts were performed. The orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller (99 % vs. 92 %; p-adjusted <.001). The orotracheal intubation and glottis visualization times decreased with the number of attempts (p <.001). The median orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope (15 s vs. 20 s; p-adjusted <.001). The median glottis visualization time with the Airtraq laryngoscope and with the Miller laryngoscope were not different (6.0 s vs. 7.5 s; p-adjusted =.237). Thirty-four (83 %) physicians preferred the Airtraq laryngoscope versus 6 (15 %) for the Miller (p-adjusted <.001).DiscussionFor tracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN-PPE during infant resuscitation simulation, we showed that the orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller laryngoscope and that orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope.ConclusionsIt seems useful to train the physicians in emergency departments in the use of pediatric Airtraq and for the management of CBRN risks.
Highlights
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of orotracheal intubation with the Miller laryngoscope compared with the Airtraq laryngoscope by emergency and pediatric physicians wearing CBRN-protective equipment (PPE) type III on infant manikins with conventional airway
It seems useful to train the physicians in emergency departments in the use of pediatric Airtraq and for the management of CBRN risks
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Miller laryngoscope compared with the Airtraq laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation (OTI) by emergency and pediatric physicians wearing CBRN-PPE type III on infant manikins with conventional airway
Summary
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of orotracheal intubation with the Miller laryngoscope compared with the Airtraq laryngoscope by emergency and pediatric physicians wearing CBRN-PPE type III on infant manikins with conventional airway. The objective of the physician is to reduce the time of exposure to a toxic agent, stabilization of vital distress should not delay decontamination [1]. Both adults and children can be exposed to CBRN agents. Pediatric and infant OTI are difficult skills to learn and require continual practice to maintain competence and minimize the failure rate, regardless of the physician’s clinical background [9,10,11]. The Miller laryngoscope is commonly used for pediatric intubation; this device is difficult to use even for skilled professionals and could become detrimental in infant emergency situations [12]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
