Kumar Rajender, Kumar Rakesh, Kumar Naveen
Department of Critical Care, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, India.
Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Dr Baba Saheb Ambedkar Medical College and Hospital, Rohini, New Delhi, India.
Indian J Crit Care Med. 2025 Feb;29(2):113-116. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24897. Epub 2025 Jan 31.
Videolaryngoscopes (VLS) frequently provide superior views of the glottis compared with traditional direct laryngoscopy (DL), especially during unexpected difficult airways. Chest compressions during attempts to intubate the trachea make it a difficult situation. Although VLS have been compared with DL for intubation during resuscitation, there is a paucity of literature comparing VLS with integrated screen and distant screen with DL during continued manual chest compressions.
This was a prospective, randomized, crossover observational manikin study. A total of 20 participants performed intubation, while manual chest compression was continuing, with each of the three devices on six occasions, but in different, randomized order. The primary outcome parameter was the total time taken for successful intubation. The secondary outcome criteria included the number of attempts, ease of intubation, and the device preference.
Time taken for successful intubation and ease of intubation were significantly better with C-MAC VLS and DL as compared with Tuoren VLS (C-Mac vs Tuoren < 0.000 for both; DL vs Tuoren < 0.001 for time and = 0.021 for ease). There was no significant difference between C-MAC and DL ( = 1.0 for time and = 0.69 for ease). There was no significant difference with regard to the number of attempts for successful intubation with any of these devices ( = 0.310). C-Mac was the most and Tuoren was the least preferred device.
C-MAC VLS and Macintosh DL are significantly easier to use and require significantly less time to achieve successful intubation as compared with the Tuoren VLS during continued manual chest compression. Among the devices tested, C-MAC VLS was the most preferred for endotracheal intubation during uninterrupted manual chest compressions.
Kumar R, Kumar R, Kumar N. Comparison of Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope with the C-MAC and Tuoren Videolaryngoscopes in Facilitating Endotracheal Intubation during Uninterrupted Manual Chest Compression: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(2):113-116.
与传统直接喉镜检查（DL）相比，视频喉镜（VLS）通常能提供更好的声门视野，尤其是在意外困难气道的情况下。气管插管尝试过程中的胸外按压使情况变得困难。尽管在复苏期间已将VLS与DL用于插管进行了比较，但在持续胸外按压期间，将带有集成屏幕和远程屏幕的VLS与DL进行比较的文献较少。
这是一项前瞻性、随机、交叉观察性人体模型研究。共有20名参与者在持续胸外按压的情况下，使用三种设备中的每一种各进行六次插管，但顺序随机且不同。主要结局参数是成功插管所需的总时间。次要结局标准包括尝试次数、插管难易程度和设备偏好。
与托人视频喉镜相比，使用C-MAC视频喉镜和直接喉镜成功插管所需时间及插管难易程度明显更好（C-Mac与托人相比，两者均P<0.000；直接喉镜与托人相比，时间P<0.001，难易程度P = 0.021）。C-MAC和直接喉镜之间无显著差异（时间P = 1.0，难易程度P = 0.69）。使用这些设备成功插管的尝试次数无显著差异（P = 0.310）。C-Mac是最受欢迎的设备，托人是最不受欢迎的设备。
与托人视频喉镜相比，在持续胸外按压期间，C-MAC视频喉镜和麦金托什直接喉镜使用起来明显更容易，成功插管所需时间明显更少。在测试的设备中，C-MAC视频喉镜是在不间断胸外按压期间进行气管插管最受欢迎的设备。
Kumar R, Kumar R, Kumar N. Comparison of Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope with the C-MAC and Tuoren Videolaryngoscopes in Facilitating Endotracheal Intubation during Uninterrupted Manual Chest Compression: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025;29(2):113-116.
