Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA.
Ann Emerg Med. 2013 Apr;61(4):414-420.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.11.001. Epub 2013 Jan 30.
There is growing use of video laryngoscopy in US emergency departments (EDs). This study seeks to compare intubation success between the GlideScope video laryngoscope and the C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC) in ED intubations.
This was an analysis of quality improvement data collected during a 3-year period in an academic ED. After each intubation, the operator completed a standardized data form reporting patient demographics, indication for intubation, device(s) used, reason for device selection, difficult airway characteristics, number of attempts, and outcome of each attempt. An attempt was defined as insertion of the device into the mouth regardless of attempt at tube placement. The primary outcomes were first pass and overall intubation success. The study compared success rates between the GlideScope video laryngoscope and the C-MAC groups, using multivariable logistic regression and adjusting for potential confounders.
During the 3-year study period, there were 463 intubations, including 230 with the GlideScope video laryngoscope as the initial device and 233 with the C-MAC as the initial device. The GlideScope video laryngoscope resulted in first-pass success in 189 of 230 intubations (82.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 76.6% to 86.9%) and overall success in 221 of 230 intubations (96.1%; 95% CI 92.7% to 98.2%). The C-MAC resulted in first-pass success in 196 of 233 intubations (84.1%; 95% CI 78.8% to 88.6%) and overall success in 225 of 233 intubations (96.6%; 95% CI 93.4% to 98.5%). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, the type of video laryngoscopic device was not associated with first-pass (odds ratio 1.1; 95% CI 0.6 to 2.1) or overall success (odds ratio 1.2; 95% CI 0.5 to 3.1).
In this study of video laryngoscopy in the ED, the GlideScope video laryngoscope and the C-MAC were associated with similar rates of intubation success.
在美国急诊科(ED)中,视频喉镜的使用越来越多。本研究旨在比较 GlideScope 视频喉镜和 C-MAC 视频喉镜(C-MAC)在 ED 插管中的插管成功率。
这是一项在学术 ED 进行的为期 3 年的质量改进数据分析。每次插管后,操作者都要填写一份标准化的数据表,报告患者的人口统计学特征、插管指征、使用的设备、设备选择的原因、困难气道特征、尝试次数和每次尝试的结果。尝试被定义为将设备插入口腔,无论是否尝试放置导管。主要结局是首次通过和整体插管成功率。该研究使用多变量逻辑回归比较了 GlideScope 视频喉镜和 C-MAC 组之间的成功率,并对潜在混杂因素进行了调整。
在 3 年的研究期间,共有 463 例插管,其中 230 例使用 GlideScope 视频喉镜作为初始设备,233 例使用 C-MAC 作为初始设备。GlideScope 视频喉镜在 230 例插管中的 189 例(82.2%;95%置信区间[CI] 76.6%至 86.9%)中实现了首次通过成功,在 230 例插管中的 221 例(96.1%;95%CI 92.7%至 98.2%)中实现了整体成功。C-MAC 在 233 例插管中的 196 例(84.1%;95%CI 78.8%至 88.6%)中实现了首次通过成功,在 233 例插管中的 225 例(96.6%;95%CI 93.4%至 98.5%)中实现了整体成功。在多变量逻辑回归分析中,视频喉镜类型与首次通过(优势比 1.1;95%CI 0.6 至 2.1)或整体成功(优势比 1.2;95%CI 0.5 至 3.1)无关。
在这项 ED 视频喉镜研究中,GlideScope 视频喉镜和 C-MAC 与相似的插管成功率相关。