Department of Anesthesiology, Hyogo College of Medicine, Mukogawa-cho 1-1, Nishinomiya, Hyogo, 663-8501, Japan.
J Anesth. 2010 Apr;24(2):306-8. doi: 10.1007/s00540-010-0874-9. Epub 2010 Feb 3.
To compare tracheal intubation with the Pentax Airway Scope (AWS) and the Macintosh laryngoscope (McL) during chest compression, 25 anesthesiologists (including 12 specialists having >5 years of experience and 13 trainees having <2 years of experience) performed tracheal intubation using either the McL or the AWS, with or without chest compression, on a manikin. Using the McL, both specialists and trainees took a significantly longer time (P < 0.01) to secure the airway with chest compression (17.3 +/- 3.7 and 22.5 +/- 8.0, respectively) and than without chest compression (11.3 +/- 2.9 and 13.9 +/- 4.4 s, respectively). No significant difference was observed in time needed to secure the airway using the AWS with or without chest compression in both groups. From the standpoint of experience, time to complete intubation for specialists using the McL during chest compression was significantly shorter than that for trainees. In contrast, the difference in time to complete intubation with the AWS during chest compression was not significantly different between the two groups. Based on these results, we conclude that the use of the AWS may reduce the time needed to secure the airway during chest compression.
为了比较在胸外按压期间使用 Pentax 气道镜（AWS）和 Macintosh 喉镜（McL）进行气管插管，25 名麻醉师（包括 12 名具有>5 年经验的专家和 13 名具有<2 年经验的受训者）在模拟人上使用 McL 或 AWS 进行气管插管，有或没有胸外按压。使用 McL，专家和受训者在进行胸外按压时（分别为 17.3 +/- 3.7 和 22.5 +/- 8.0）和没有胸外按压时（分别为 11.3 +/- 2.9 和 13.9 +/- 4.4 s）固定气道所需的时间明显更长（P < 0.01）。在两组中，使用 AWS 进行胸外按压或不进行胸外按压时，固定气道所需的时间均无明显差异。从经验的角度来看，在进行胸外按压时，专家使用 McL 完成插管的时间明显短于受训者。相比之下，在进行胸外按压时使用 AWS 完成插管的时间差异在两组之间无显著差异。基于这些结果，我们得出结论，使用 AWS 可能会缩短在胸外按压期间固定气道所需的时间。
