Background Tracheal intubation is used for advanced airway management during cardiac arrest, particularly when basic airway techniques cannot ensure adequate ventilation. However, minimizing interruptions of chest compressions is of high priority. Video laryngoscopy has been shown to improve the first-pass success rate for tracheal intubation in emergency airway management. We aimed to compare first-pass success rate and time to successful intubation during uninterrupted chest compression using video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy. Methods A total of 28 anaesthetists and 28 anaesthesia nurses with varied clinical and anaesthesiological experience were recruited for the study. All participants performed a tracheal intubation on a manikin simulator during ongoing chest compressions by a mechanical resuscitation device. Stratified randomisation (physicians/nurses) was performed, with one group using direct laryngoscopy and the other using video laryngoscopy. Results First-pass success rate was 100% (95% CI: 87.9% - 100.0%) in the video laryngoscopy group and 67.8% (95% CI: 49.3% - 82.1%) in the direct laryngoscopy group [difference: 32.2% (95% CI: 17.8% - 50.8%), p<0.001]. The median time for intubation was 27.5 seconds (IQR: 21.8–31.0 seconds) in the video laryngoscopy group and 30.0 seconds (IQR: 26.5–36.5 seconds) in the direct laryngoscopy group (p = 0.019). Conclusion This manikin study on tracheal intubation during ongoing chest compressions demonstrates that video laryngoscopy had a higher first-pass success rate and shorter time to successful intubation compared to direct laryngoscopy. Experience in airway management and professional group were not significant predictors. A clinical randomized controlled trial appears worthwhile.
Background During cardiac arrest, management of the patient’s airway by tracheal intubation is the gold standard. However, minimizing interruptions to chest compressions is of high priority. Video laryngoscopy has been shown to improve the first-pass success rate for with tracheal intubation in emergency airway management. We aimed to compare first-pass success rate and time to successful intubation during uninterrupted chest compression using video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy. Methods A total of 28 anaesthetists and 28 anaesthesia nurses with varied clinical and anaesthesiological experience were recruited for the study. All participants performed a tracheal intubation on a manikin simulator during ongoing chest compressions by a mechanical resuscitation device. Stratified randomisation (physicians/nurses) was performed, with one group using direct laryngoscopy and the other using video laryngoscopy. Results First-pass success rate was 100% (95% CI: 87.9% − 100.0%) in the video laryngoscopy group and 67.8% (95% CI: 49.3% − 82.1%) in the direct laryngoscopy group [difference: 32.2% (95% CI: 17.8% − 50.8%), p < 0.001]. The median time for intubation was 27.5 seconds (IQR: 21.8–31.0 seconds) in the video laryngoscopy group and 30.0 seconds (IQR: 26.5–36.5 seconds) in the direct laryngoscopy group (p = 0.019). Conclusion This manikin study demonstrates that tracheal intubation under ongoing chest compressions has a higher first-pass success rate and shorter time to successful intubation with video laryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy. Experience in airway management and professional group were not significant predictors.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.