Video laryngoscopy for emergency intubation

Author(s):  
Kenneth P. Rothfield ◽  
John C. Sakles
2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 747-748 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fu-Shan Xue ◽  
Gao-Pu Liu ◽  
Chao Sun ◽  
Rui-Ping Li

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 782-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Michailidou ◽  
Terence O’Keeffe ◽  
Jarrod M. Mosier ◽  
Randall S. Friese ◽  
Bellal Joseph ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yi Hui To ◽  
Yong‐Kwang Gene Ong ◽  
Shu‐Ling Chong ◽  
Peck Har Ang ◽  
Nur Diana Bte Zakaria ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Jürgen Knapp ◽  
Bettina Eberle ◽  
Michael Bernhard ◽  
Lorenz Theiler ◽  
Urs Pietsch ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Tracheal intubation remains the gold standard of airway management in emergency medicine and maximizing safety, intubation success, and especially first-pass intubation success (FPS) in these situations is imperative. Methods We conducted a prospective observational study on all 12 helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS) bases of the Swiss Air Rescue, between February 15, 2018, and February 14, 2019. All 428 patients on whom out-of-hospital advanced airway management was performed by the HEMS crew were included. The C-MAC video laryngoscope was used as the primary device for tracheal intubation. Intubation procedures were recorded by the video laryngoscope and precise time points were recorded to verify the time necessary for each attempt and the overall procedure time until successful intubation. The videos were further analysed for problems and complications during airway management by an independent reviewer. Additionally, a questionnaire about the intubation procedure, basic characteristics of the patient, circumstances, environmental factors, and the provider’s level of experience in airway management was filled out. Main outcome measures were FPS of tracheal intubation, overall success rate, overall intubation time, problems and complications of video laryngoscopy. Results FPS rate was 87.6% and overall success rate 98.6%. Success rates, overall time to intubation, and subjective difficulty were not associated to the providers’ expertise in airway management. In patients undergoing CPR FPS was 84.8%, in trauma patients 86.4% and in non-trauma patients 93.3%. FPS in patients with difficult airway characteristics, facial trauma/burns or obesity ranges between 87 and 89%. Performing airway management indoors or inside an ambulance resulted in a significantly higher FPS of 91.1% compared to outdoor locations (p < 0.001). Direct solar irradiation on the screen, fogging of the lens, and blood on the camera significantly impaired FPS. Several issues for further improvements in the use of video laryngoscopy in the out-of-hospital setting and for quality control in airway management were identified. Conclusion Airway management using the C-MAC video laryngoscope with Macintosh blade in a group of operators with mixed experience showed high FPS and overall rates of intubation success. Video recording emergency intubations may improve education and quality control.


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (01) ◽  
pp. e5-e10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iram Musharaf ◽  
Sibasis Daspal ◽  
John Shatzer

Abstract Background Endotracheal intubation is a skill required for resuscitation. Due to various reasons, intubation opportunities are decreasing for health care providers. Objective To compare the success rate of video laryngoscopy (VL) and direct laryngoscopy (DL) for interprofessional neonatal intubation skills in a simulated setting. Methods This was a prospective nonrandomized simulation crossover trial. Twenty-six participants were divided into three groups based on their frequency of intubation. Group 1 included pediatric residents; group 2 respiratory therapists and transport nurses; and group 3 neonatal nurse practitioners and physicians working in neonatology. We compared intubation success rate, intubation time, and laryngoscope preference. Results Success rates were 100% for both DL and VL in groups 1 and 2, and 88.9% for DL and 100% for VL in group 3. Median intubation times for DL and VL were 22 seconds (interquartile range [IQR] 14.3–22.8 seconds) and 12.5 seconds (IQR 10.3–38.8 seconds) in group 1 (p = 0.779); 17 seconds (IQR 8–21 seconds) and 12 seconds (IQR 9–16.5 seconds) in group 2 (p = 0.476); and 11 seconds (IQR 7.5–15.5 seconds) and 15 seconds (IQR 11.5–36 seconds) in group 3 (p = 0.024). Conclusion We conclude that novice providers tend to perform better with VL, while more experienced providers perform better with DL. In this era of decreased clinical training opportunities, VL may serve as a useful tool to teach residents and other novice health care providers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document