Department of Emergency Medical Service, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland.
Lazarski University, 43 Swieradowska Str., 02-662, Warsaw, Poland.
Eur J Pediatr. 2019 Jun;178(6):937-945. doi: 10.1007/s00431-019-03375-y. Epub 2019 Apr 11.
With different videolaryngoscopes for pediatric patients available, UEScope can be used in all age groups. The aim of this study was to compare the Miller laryngoscope and UEScope in pediatric intubation by paramedics in different scenarios. Overall, 93 paramedics with no experience in pediatric intubation or videolaryngoscopy performed endotracheal intubation in scenarios: (A) normal airway without chest compressions, (B) difficult airway without chest compressions, (C) normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, (D) difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. Scenario A. Total intubation success with both laryngoscopes: 100%. First-attempt success: 100% for UEScope, 96.8% for Miller. Median intubation time for UEScope: 13 s [IQR, 12.5-17], statistically significantly lower than for Miller: 14 s [IQR, 12-19.5] (p = 0.044). Scenario B. Total efficacy: 81.7% for Miller, 100% for UEScope (p = 0.012). First-attempt success: 48.4% for Miller, 87.1% for UEScope (p = 0.001). Median intubation time: 27 s [IQR, 21-33] with Miller, 15 s [IQR, 14-21] with UEScope (p = 0.001). Scenario C. Total efficiency: 91.4% with Miller, 100% with UEScope (p = 0.018); first-attempt success: 67.7 vs. 90.3% (p = 0.003), respectively. Intubation time: 21 s [IQR, 18-28] for Miller, 15 s [IQR, 12-19.5] for UEScope. Scenario D. Total efficiency: 65.6% with Miller, 98.9% with UEScope (p < 0.001); first-attempt success: 29.1 vs. 72% (p = 0.001), respectively. Intubation time: 38 s [IQR, 23-46] for Miller, 21 s [IQR, 17-25.5] for UEScope.Conclusion: In pediatric normal airway without chest compressions, UEScope is comparable with Miller. In difficult pediatric airways without chest compressions, UEScope offers better first-attempt success, shorted median intubation time, and improved glottic visualization. With uninterrupted chest compressions in normal or difficult airway, UEScope provides a higher first-attempt success, a shorter median intubation time, and a better glottic visualization than Miller laryngoscope. What is Known: • Endotracheal intubation is the gold standard for adult and children airway management. • More than two direct laryngoscopy attempts in children with difficult airways are associated with a high failure rate and increased incidence of severe complications. What is New: • In difficult pediatric airways with or without chest compressions, UEScope in inexperienced providers in simulated settings provides better first-attempt efficiency, median intubation time, and glottic visualization.
使用不同的儿科可视喉镜,UEScope 可用于所有年龄段。本研究旨在比较在不同场景下,急救人员使用 Miller 喉镜和 UEScope 进行小儿插管的效果。共有 93 名无小儿插管或可视喉镜经验的急救人员在以下场景中进行气管插管:(A)无胸部按压的正常气道,(B)无胸部按压的困难气道,(C)有不间断胸部按压的正常气道,(D)有不间断胸部按压的困难气道。场景 A. 两种喉镜的总插管成功率均为 100%。首次尝试成功率:UEScope 为 100%,Miller 为 96.8%。UEScope 的中位插管时间为 13 秒 [IQR,12.5-17],显著低于 Miller 的 14 秒 [IQR,12-19.5](p=0.044)。场景 B. 总有效率:Miller 为 81.7%,UEScope 为 100%(p=0.012)。首次尝试成功率:Miller 为 48.4%,UEScope 为 87.1%(p=0.001)。中位插管时间:Miller 为 27 秒 [IQR,21-33],UEScope 为 15 秒 [IQR,14-21](p=0.001)。场景 C. 总有效率:Miller 为 91.4%,UEScope 为 100%(p=0.018);首次尝试成功率:67.7%比 90.3%(p=0.003)。插管时间:Miller 为 21 秒 [IQR,18-28],UEScope 为 15 秒 [IQR,12-19.5]。场景 D. 总有效率:Miller 为 65.6%,UEScope 为 98.9%(p<0.001);首次尝试成功率:29.1%比 72%(p=0.001)。插管时间:Miller 为 38 秒 [IQR,23-46],UEScope 为 21 秒 [IQR,17-25.5]。结论:在小儿无胸部按压的正常气道中,UEScope 与 Miller 相当。在无胸部按压的困难小儿气道中,UEScope 可提高首次尝试成功率,缩短中位插管时间,并改善声门可视度。在正常或困难气道中有不间断的胸部按压时,UEScope 与 Miller 喉镜相比,可提高首次尝试成功率、缩短中位插管时间和改善声门可视度。已知:• 气管插管是成人和儿童气道管理的金标准。• 在有困难气道的儿童中,进行两次以上的直接喉镜尝试与高失败率和严重并发症发生率增加相关。新发现:• 在有或无胸部按压的困难小儿气道中,经验不足的急救人员使用 UEScope 可提高首次尝试效率、中位插管时间和声门可视度。