Published in:
01-08-2011 | Reports of Original Investigations
Tracheal intubation during chest compressions using Pentax-AWS®, GlideScope®, and Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomized crossover trial using a mannequin
Published in: Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie | Issue 8/2011
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
A randomized crossover trial was conducted to compare the performance of two videolaryngoscopes (Pentax-AWS®, GlideScope®) with the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation during continuous chest compressions on a mannequin.
Methods
Thirty-two inexperienced junior interns performed tracheal intubations on an advanced life support simulator with either a normal or difficult airway scenario. The sequence of intubating devices and airway difficulty were randomized. The following data were measured and recorded: time to complete tracheal intubation (primary end point), overall success rate, time to visualize the vocal cords, percentage of glottic opening, dental compression, and ease of intubation.
Results
With a normal airway, the times (median [interquartile range]) to complete tracheal intubation were shorter with the Pentax-AWS (12.1 [10.1-14.4] sec) and the GlideScope (14.3 [12.4-17.6] sec) than with the Macintosh laryngoscope (16.5 [13.1-22.1] sec) (P < 0.03 for both). The time difference between the two videolaryngoscopes was not statistically significant. With a difficult airway scenario, the times to complete tracheal intubation were 13.9 [10.9-20.4] sec, 19.2 [16.4-32.3] sec, and 30.1 [21.0-56.5] sec, respectively (P < 0.05 for all differences). The videolaryngoscopes were also more effective than the Macintosh laryngoscope with respect to secondary outcomes.
Conclusions
The two videolaryngoscopes were superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of performing tracheal intubation during continuous chest compressions on a mannequin. In a difficult airway scenario simulating cardiac arrest, the Pentax-AWS performed better than the GlideScope.