Department of Emergency Medicine University of California, Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Oct;17(10):1134-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00867.x.
Video laryngoscopy has been shown to improve glottic exposure when compared to direct laryngoscopy in operating room studies. However, its utility in the hands of emergency physicians (EPs) remains undefined. A simulated difficult airway was used to determine if intubation by EPs using a video Macintosh system resulted in an improved glottic view, was easier, was faster, or was more successful than conventional direct laryngoscopy.
Emergency medicine (EM) residents and attending physicians at two academic institutions performed endotracheal intubation in one normal and two identical difficult airway scenarios. With the difficult scenarios, the participants used video laryngoscopy during the second case. Intubations were performed on a medium-fidelity human simulator. The difficult scenario was created by limiting cervical spine mobility and inducing trismus. The primary outcome was the proportion of direct versus video intubations with a grade I or II Cormack-Lehane glottic view. Ease of intubation (self-reported via 10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]), time to intubation, and success rate were also recorded. Descriptive statistics as well as medians with interquartile ranges (IQRs) are reported where appropriate. The Wilcoxon matched pairs signed-rank test was used for comparison testing of nonparametric data.
Participants (n = 39) were residents (59%) and faculty. All had human intubation experience; 51% reported more than 100 prior intubations. On difficult laryngoscopy, a Cormack-Lehane grade I or II view was obtained in 20 (51%) direct laryngoscopies versus 38 (97%) of the video-assisted laryngoscopies (p < 0.01). The median VAS score for difficult airways was 50 mm (IQR = 28–73 mm) for direct versus 18 mm (IQR = 9–50 mm) for video (p < 0.01). The median time to intubation in difficult airways was 25 seconds (IQR = 16–44 seconds) for direct versus 20 seconds (IQR = 12–35 seconds) for video laryngoscopy (p < 0.01). All intubations were successful without need for an invasive airway.
In this simulation, video laryngoscopy was associated with improved glottic exposure, was perceived as easier, and was slightly faster than conventional direct laryngoscopy in a simulated difficult airway. Absence of secretions and blood limits the generalizability of our findings; human studies are needed.
与在手术室研究中直接喉镜相比,视频喉镜已被证明可改善声门显露。然而,急诊医师(EP)手中的效用仍未确定。使用模拟困难气道来确定 EP 使用视频 Macintosh 系统进行插管是否会导致改善的声门视图,是否更容易,更快,或是否比传统的直接喉镜更成功。
在两个学术机构中,急诊医学(EM)住院医师和主治医生在一个正常和两个相同的困难气道情况下进行气管内插管。在困难情况下,参与者在第二个病例中使用视频喉镜。插管在中等保真度的人体模拟器上进行。通过限制颈椎活动度和诱发牙关紧闭来创建困难情况。主要结局是直接与视频插管的比例,具有 I 级或 II 级 Cormack-Lehane 声门视图。还记录了插管的难易程度(通过 10-cm 视觉模拟量表[VAS]自我报告),插管时间和成功率。在适当的情况下,报告描述性统计信息以及中位数和四分位距(IQR)。使用 Wilcoxon 配对符号秩检验比较非参数数据。
参与者(n = 39)为住院医师(59%)和教职员工。所有人都有人类插管经验; 51%的人报告了 100 多次插管。在困难的喉镜检查中,直接喉镜检查获得 Cormack-Lehane Ⅰ级或Ⅱ级视图的比例为 20 例(51%),而视频辅助喉镜检查的比例为 38 例(97%)(p <0.01)。直接喉镜检查困难气道的 VAS 评分中位数为 50mm(IQR = 28-73mm),而视频检查为 18mm(IQR = 9-50mm)(p <0.01)。直接喉镜检查困难气道的中位插管时间为 25 秒(IQR = 16-44 秒),而视频喉镜检查为 20 秒(IQR = 12-35 秒)(p <0.01)。所有插管均成功,无需使用侵入性气道。
在这项模拟研究中,与传统的直接喉镜相比,视频喉镜在模拟困难气道中可改善声门显露,被认为更容易,且速度略快。没有分泌物和血液会限制我们研究结果的普遍性; 需要进行人体研究。