Department of Anatomy, University of Athens, Medical School, 75 Mikras Asias Street, 11527, Athens, Greece.
Resuscitation. 2011 Apr;82(4):464-7. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.12.011. Epub 2011 Jan 26.
The aim of this study was to assess the performance of the Glidescope(®) in a manikin cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) scenario.
Following a brief didactic session, 45 volunteer doctors inexperienced with airway management, attempted to intubate a manikin using a Macintosh laryngoscope and Glidescope(®) with uninterrupted and without chest compressions. Primary endpoints were intubation times and success rate with each device. Dental compression and level of self-confidence in using each device were also assessed.
In the scenario without chest compressions the cumulative success rate related to time to intubation was significantly higher with the Macintosh blade than with the Glidescope(®) (p<0.001). On the contrary, in the scenario with continuous chest compressions, the cumulative rate related to time to intubation was significantly higher with the Glidescope(®) (p=0.035). Significantly fewer attempts were required for the first successful intubation with the Macintosh blade in the non-CPR scenario versus the CPR scenario (p=0.007). Moreover, the number of attempts for the first successful intubation was significantly lower for the Glidescope(®) in the non-CPR (p=0.001) and the CPR scenario (p<0.001). Dental compression was significantly lower with the Glidescope(®) in both scenarios (p<0.001).
Using the GlideScope(®) in a manikin CPR scenario provides extremely high intubation success rates in short times with the first attempt, in medical practitioners inexperienced in intubation.
本研究旨在评估 Glidescope（®）在模拟人心肺复苏（CPR）场景中的性能。
在简短的教学课程之后，45 名对气道管理经验不足的志愿医生尝试在不中断和不进行胸外按压的情况下，使用 Macintosh 喉镜和 Glidescope（®）对模拟人进行插管。主要终点是使用每种设备的插管时间和成功率。还评估了牙齿受压情况和使用每种设备的自信心水平。
在不进行胸外按压的情况下，与 Glidescope（®）相比，Macintosh 刀片的插管时间累积成功率与时间相关显著更高（p<0.001）。相反，在持续进行胸外按压的情况下，与时间相关的插管时间累积成功率与 Glidescope（®）显著更高（p=0.035）。在非 CPR 情况下，首次成功插管需要的尝试次数明显少于 CPR 情况下（p=0.007）。此外，在非 CPR（p=0.001）和 CPR 情况下（p<0.001），首次成功插管的尝试次数也明显低于 Glidescope（®）。在两种情况下，牙齿受压均明显低于 Glidescope（®）（p<0.001）。
在模拟人心肺复苏场景中使用 GlideScope（®），在经验不足的插管医生中，首次尝试即可在短时间内实现极高的插管成功率。
