Tracheal intubation in microgravity: a simulation study comparing direct laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopy†

Abstract

BackgroundThe risk of severe medical and surgical events during long-duration spaceflight is significant. In space, many environmental and psychological factors may make tracheal intubation more difficult than on Earth. We hypothesised that, in microgravity, tracheal intubation may be facilitated by the use of a videolaryngoscope compared with direct laryngoscopy. MethodsIn a non-randomised, controlled, cross-over simulation study, we compared intubation performance of novice operators and experts, using either a direct laryngoscope or a videolaryngoscope, in weightlessness and in normogravity. The primary outcome was the success rate of tracheal intubation. Time to intubation and the confidence score into the success of tube placement were also recorded. ResultsWhen novices attempted to intubate the trachea in microgravity, the success rate of tracheal intubation using a videolaryngoscope was significantly higher (20/25 [80%]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.3–95.7 vs eight/20 [40%]; 95% CI, 18.5–61.5; P=0.006), and intubation time was shorter, compared with using a direct laryngoscope. In normogravity, the success rate of tracheal intubation by experts was significantly higher than that by novices (16/20 [80%]; 95% CI, 62.5–97.5 vs seven/25 [28%]; 95% CI, 10.4–45.6; P=0.001), but in microgravity, there was no significant difference between the experts and novices (19/20 [95%]; 95% CI, 85.4–100 vs 20/25 [80%]; 95% CI, 64.3–95.7; P=0.113). Higher confidence scores were achieved with videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy by both experts and novices in both microgravity and normogravity. ConclusionsVideolaryngoscopy was associated with higher intubation success rate and speed, and higher confidence for correct tube placement by novice operators in microgravity, and as such may represent the best technique for advanced airway management during long-duration spaceflight.