The Pediatric Rigid Stylet Improves First-Pass Success Compared With the Standard Malleable Stylet and Tracheal Tube Introducer in a Simulated Pediatric Emergency Intubation.

Abstract

Pediatric emergency intubation is a high-acuity, low-occurrence procedure. Despite advances in technology, the success of this procedure remains low and adverse events are very high. Prospective observational studies in children have demonstrated improved success with the use of video laryngoscopy (VL) compared with direct laryngoscopy, although reported first-pass success (FPS) rates are lower than that reported for adults. This may in part be due to difficulty directing the tracheal tube to the laryngeal inlet considering the cephalad position of the larynx in infants. Using airway adjuncts such as the pediatric rigid stylet (PRS) or a tracheal tube introducer (TTI) may aid with intubation to the cephalad positioned airway when performing VL. The objectives of this study were to assess the FPS and time to intubation when intubating an infant manikin with a standard malleable stylet (SMS) compared with a PRS and TTI. This was a randomized cross-over study performed at an academic institution both with emergency medicine (EM) and combined pediatric and EM (EM&PEDS) residency programs. Emergency medicine and EM&PEDS residents were recruited to participate. Each resident performed intubations on a 6-month-old infant simulator using a standard geometry C-MAC Miller 1 video laryngoscope and 3 different intubation adjuncts (SMS, PRS, TTI) in a randomized fashion. All sessions were video recorded for data analysis. The primary outcome was FPS using the 3 different intubation adjuncts. The secondary outcome was the mean time to intubation (in seconds) for each adjunct. Fifty-one participants performed 227 intubations. First-pass success with the SMS was 73% (37/51), FPS was 94% (48/51) with the PRS, and 29% (15/51) with the TTI. First-pass success was lower with the SMS (-43%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -63% to -23%; P < 0.01) and significantly lower with the TTI compared with PRS (difference -65%; 95% CI, -81% to -49%; P < 0.01). First-pass success while using the PRS was higher than SMS (difference 22%, 7% to 36%; P < 0.01). The mean time to intubation using the SMS was 44 ± 13 seconds, the PRS was 38 ± 11 seconds, and TTI was 59 ± 15 seconds. The mean time to intubation was higher with SMS (difference 15 seconds; 95% CI, 10 to 20 seconds; P < 0.01) and significantly higher with the TTI compared with PRS (difference 21 seconds; 95% CI, 17 to 26 seconds; P < 0.01). Time to intubation with the PRS was lower than SMS (difference -7 seconds; 95% CI, -11 to -2 seconds; P < 0.01). The ease of use was significantly higher for the PRS compared with the TTI when operators rated them on a visual analog scale (91 vs 20 mm). Use of the PRS by EM and EM&PEDS residents on an infant simulator was associated with increased FPS and shorter time to intubation. Clinical studies are warranted comparing these intubation aids in children.