Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam 13620, Republic of Korea.
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul 03080, Republic of Korea.
Biomed Res Int. 2021 Nov 10;2021:4288367. doi: 10.1155/2021/4288367. eCollection 2021.
The use of both a video laryngoscope and a video intubation stylet, compared with the use of a direct laryngoscope, is not only easier to learn but also associated with a higher success rate in performing endotracheal intubation for novice users. However, data comparing the two video devices used by novice personnel are rarely found in literature. Nondelayed intubation is an important condition to determine the prognosis in critically ill patients; hence, exploring intubation performance in various situations is of clinical significance. This study is aimed at comparing a video stylet and a video laryngoscope for intubation in an airway manikin with normal airway and cervical spine immobilization scenarios by novice personnel. We compared the performance of intubation by novices between the Aram Video Stylet and the McGrath® MAC video laryngoscope in an airway manikin. Thirty medical doctors with minimal experience of endotracheal intubation attempted intubation on a manikin five times with each device in each setting (normal airway and cervical spine immobilization scenarios). The order of use of the devices in each scenario was randomized for each participant. In the normal airway scenario, the Aram stylet showed a significantly higher rate of successful intubation than the McGrath® (98.7% vs. 92.0%; odds ratio (95% CI): 6.4 (1.4-29.3); = 0.006). The intubation time was shorter using the Aram Stylet than that using the McGrath® video laryngoscope ( < 0.001). In the cervical immobilization scenario, successful endotracheal intubation was also more frequent using the Aram stylet than with the McGrath® (96.0% vs. 87.3%; odds ratio (95% CI): 3.5 (1.3-9.0); = 0.007). The Aram Stylet intubation time was shorter ( < 0.001). In novice personnel, endotracheal intubation appears to be more successful and faster using the Aram Video Stylet than the McGrath® MAC video laryngoscope.
使用视频喉镜和视频插管管芯,与使用直接喉镜相比,不仅更容易学习,而且对于新手使用者进行气管插管的成功率也更高。然而,文献中很少有比较新手使用的两种视频设备的数据。及时进行插管是确定危重症患者预后的重要条件;因此,探索各种情况下的插管性能具有临床意义。本研究旨在通过新手在气道模型中比较视频插管管芯和视频喉镜在正常气道和颈椎固定场景下的插管性能。我们比较了新手在气道模型中使用 Aram Video Stylet 和 McGrath® MAC 视频喉镜进行插管的性能。30 名具有最小气管插管经验的医生在每个设置(正常气道和颈椎固定场景)中使用每个设备在模型上进行五次尝试。每个参与者在每个场景中使用设备的顺序是随机的。在正常气道场景中,Aram 插管管芯的插管成功率明显高于 McGrath®(98.7% vs. 92.0%;优势比(95%CI):6.4(1.4-29.3); = 0.006)。使用 Aram Stylet 的插管时间比使用 McGrath®视频喉镜的时间更短( < 0.001)。在颈椎固定场景中,使用 Aram 插管管芯的气管插管成功率也高于 McGrath®(96.0% vs. 87.3%;优势比(95%CI):3.5(1.3-9.0); = 0.007)。Aram Stylet 的插管时间更短( < 0.001)。在新手操作人员中,使用 Aram Video Stylet 进行气管插管似乎比使用 McGrath® MAC 视频喉镜更成功且更快。