SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish journal of emergency medicine (Online) / 2020 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of the time to successful endotracheal intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope or KingVision video laryngoscope in the emergency department: A prospective observational study

Ankur VERMA
Tanvi MALLICK
Sanjay JAISWAL
Wasil Rasool SHEIKH
Meghna HALDAR
Amit VISHEN
Abhishek SNEHY
Rinkey AHUJA
Pages
22–27
Publication Date
2022-11-02
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Overall, mean time to intubate patients using the DL was 15.85 s (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.05–17.65), while the meantime with KVVL was 13.75 s (95% CI 12.32–15.18) (P = 0.084).

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:OBJECTIVE: Intubation is a skill that must be mastered by the emergency physician (EP).
📊
Key Findings & Data:RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were enrolled in the study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, mean time to intubate patients using the DL was 15.85 s (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.05–17.65), while the meantime with KVVL was 13.75 s (95% CI 12.32–15.18) (P = 0.084).
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Intubation is a skill that must be mastered by the emergency physician (EP). Today, we have a host of video laryngoscopes which have been developed to make intubations easier and faster. It may seem that in a busy emergency department (ED), a video laryngoscope (VL) in the hands of an EP would help him intubate patients faster compared to the traditional direct laryngoscope (DL). Our goal was to compare the time taken to successfully intubate patients coming in ED using King Vision VL (KVVL) and DL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study on patients coming to the ED requiring emergent intubation. They were allocated one to one alternatively into two groups – KVVL and DL. Accordingly, KVVL or DL intubations were carried out by the EPs. Time taken to intubate, first‑pass success, and crossover between laryngoscopes were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were enrolled in the study. Overall, mean time to intubate patients using the DL was 15.85 s (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.05–17.65), while the meantime with KVVL was 13.75 s (95% CI 12.32–15.18) (P = 0.084). The overall first‑pass success rates with DL and KVVL were 89.94% and 85.16%, respectively (P = 0.076). A total of 7.43% (95% CI 5.12–10.66) patients had crossover between laryngoscopes. CONCLUSION: We found the KVVL to have a similar performance to the DL in terms of time for intubations and ease in difficult airways. We consider the KVVL a useful device for EDs to equip themselves with.

🔖

Cite This Article

VERMA, A., MALLICK, T., JAISWAL, S., SHEIKH, W. R., HALDAR, M., VISHEN, A., SNEHY, A., AHUJA, R. (2022). Comparison of the time to successful endotracheal intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope or KingVision video laryngoscope in the emergency department: A prospective observational study. Turkish journal of emergency medicine (Online), Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1, 22–27. https://ajindex.com/articles/605254

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Sagarin MJ, Barton ED, Chng YM, Walls RM; National Emergency Airway Registry Investigators. Airway management by US and Canadian emergency medicine residents: A multicenter analysis of more than 6,000 endotracheal intubation attempts. Ann Emerg Med 2005;46:328‑36
  2. Tayal VS, Riggs RW, Marx JA, Tomaszewski CA, Schneider RE. Rapid‑sequence intubation at an emergency medicine residency: Success rate and adverse events during a two‑year period. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:31‑7
  3. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists task force on management of the difficult airway. Anesthesiology 2003;98:1269‑77
  4. Ollerton JE, Parr MJ, Harrison K, Hanrahan B, Sugrue M. Potential cervical spine injury and difficult airway management for emergency intubation of trauma adults in the emergency department – A systematic review. Emerg Med J 2006;23:3‑11
  5. Weingart SD, Trueger NS, Wong N, Scofi J, Singh N, Rudolph SS, et al. Delayed sequence intubation: A prospective observational study. Ann Emerg Med 2015;65:349‑55
  6. McElwain J, Malik MA, Harte BH, Flynn NM, Laffey JG. Comparison of the C‑MAC videolaryngoscope with the macintosh, glidescope, and airtraq laryngoscopes in easy and difficult laryngoscopy scenarios in manikins. Anaesthesia 2010;65:483‑9
  7. Namazi IJ, Sahni S. A comparison of two video laryngoscopes: Truview and kingvision in routine airway management. Int J Anesth Res 2014;2:48‑52
  8. Platts‑Mills TF, Campagne D, Chinnock B, Snowden B, Glickman LT, Hendey GW, et al. A comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16:866‑71
  9. Agrò F, Barzoi G, Montecchia F. Tracheal intubation using a macintosh laryngoscope or a GlideScope in 15 patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth 2003;90:705‑6
  10. Michailidou M, O’Keeffe T, Mosier JM, Friese RS, Joseph B, Rhee P, et al. A comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for the emergency intubation of trauma patients. World J Surg 2015;39:782‑8
  11. Burkle CM, Zepeda FA, Bacon DR, Rose SH. A historical perspective on use of the laryngoscope as a tool in anesthesiology. Anesthesiology 2004;100:1003‑6
  12. Sakles JC, Patanwala AE, Mosier JM, Dicken JM. Comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of patients with difficu