Kotera Atsushi, Irie Hiroki, Iwashita Shinsuke, Taniguchi Junichi, Kasaoka Shunji, Kinoshita Yoshihiro
Department of Emergency and General Medicine Kumamoto University Hospital Kumamoto Japan.
Department of Intensive Care Medicine Kumamoto University Hospital Kumamoto Japan.
Acute Med Surg. 2014 Apr 23;1(3):163-169. doi: 10.1002/ams2.35. eCollection 2014 Jul.
The Pentax Airway Scope occasionally contacts the arm of the chest compressor at insertion because of its large body. Here, we test the Airway Scope's ease of use compared to that of the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope during chest compression, when operated by a novice.
We recruited 73 participants into this simulation study. Each participant carried out tracheal intubation using the two devices without and with chest compression. We recorded the time to intubation and the success rate. All of the participants completed a brief questionnaire after finishing the attempts.
Data are medians and ranges. The time to intubation (seconds) without and with chest compression were 11 (7-57) and 13 (7-90) by the Macintosh laryngoscope, respectively, and 14 (6-46) and 15 (6-69) by the Airway Scope, respectively. The difference in the time to intubation between the groups without and with chest compression was significant for the Macintosh laryngoscope ( = 0.0434) but not significant for the Airway Scope. The time to intubation in the Airway Scope attempts were slightly longer than those in the Macintosh laryngoscope attempts (not significant). The success rate using the Macintosh laryngoscope with chest compression was significantly lower than that without chest compression (92% versus 100%, = 0.0124). The success rate using the Airway Scope was 100%, but an accident occurred in four attempts. The questionnaire revealed that 54 participants preferred the Airway Scope and 19 preferred the Macintosh laryngoscope.
The Pentax Airway Scope appears to be better than the Macintosh laryngoscope during chest compression if the operator is a novice. However, using the Airway Scope does not always reduce the time to intubation.
宾得气道镜因其体积较大，在插入时偶尔会与胸外按压者的手臂接触。在此，我们测试了新手操作时，与传统麦金托什喉镜相比，气道镜在胸外按压期间的易用性。
我们招募了73名参与者进行这项模拟研究。每位参与者使用这两种设备在无胸外按压和有胸外按压的情况下进行气管插管。我们记录了插管时间和成功率。所有参与者在完成尝试后填写了一份简短问卷。
数据为中位数和范围。麦金托什喉镜在无胸外按压和有胸外按压时的插管时间（秒）分别为11（7 - 57）和13（7 - 90），气道镜分别为14（6 - 46）和15（6 - 69）。麦金托什喉镜在无胸外按压和有胸外按压组之间的插管时间差异具有统计学意义（P = 0.0434），但气道镜组无统计学意义。气道镜尝试的插管时间比麦金托什喉镜尝试的略长（无统计学意义）。有胸外按压时使用麦金托什喉镜的成功率显著低于无胸外按压时（92%对100%，P = 0.0124）。使用气道镜的成功率为100%，但有4次尝试发生了意外。问卷显示，54名参与者更喜欢气道镜，19名更喜欢麦金托什喉镜。
如果操作者是新手，宾得气道镜在胸外按压期间似乎比麦金托什喉镜更好。然而，使用气道镜并不总是能缩短插管时间。
