196 Out-of-Hospital Pediatric Endotracheal Intubation by Air Transport Providers Results of the National Emergency Airway (NEAR) Vi Database

Tollefsen, William W.; Brown, C.A.; Cox, Kristin; Walls, RM

doi:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.06.224

Cited by 11 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The higher efficiency of Intubrite® may be due to the different profiles of its handle and better lighting placement on the laryngoscope blade. The effectiveness of direct intubation on children using a laryngoscope with Macintosh or Miller blades performed by paramedics in out-of-hospital conditions is varied and ranges from 63.4 to 77 % in the study by Gerritse et al [ 7 , 8 ], 79.8 % in the study by Tollefsen et al [ 19 ], and 82 % in the study by Vilke et al [ 20 ]. Research indicates that low first attempt efficiency of intubation of children does not apply only to intubation performed by paramedics and activities under prehospital care.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to compare the intubation times and success rates of various laryngoscopes during resuscitation in pediatric emergency intubation with uninterrupted chest compression on a standardized pediatric manikin model. This was a randomized crossover study with 107 paramedic participants. We compared times to successful intubation, intubation success rates, and glottic visibility using a Cormack–Lehane grade for Macintosh, Intubrite®, Coopdech®, and Copilot® laryngoscopes. One hundred seven paramedics (mean age 31.2 ± 7.5 years) routinely involved in the management of prehospital care participated in this study. Intubation success rates (overall effectiveness), which was the primary study endpoint, were highest for the Coopdech® and CoPilot® devices (100 %) and were lowest for Intubrite® (89.7 %, p < 0.001) and Macintosh (80.4 %, p < 0.001). The secondary study endpoint, time to first effective ventilation, was achieved fastest when using the Coopdech® laryngoscope (21.6 ± 6.2 s) and was significantly slower with all other devices (Intubrite® 25.4 ± 10.5 s, p = 0.006; CoPilot® 25.6 ± 7.4 s, p = 0.007; Macintosh 29.4 ± 8.2 s, p < 0.001).Conclusion: We conclude that in child simulations managed by paramedics, the Coopdech® and Copilot® video laryngoscopes performed better than the standard Macintosh or Intubrite® laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation during child chest compression. “What is Known” • Pediatric intubation performed by paramedics in prehospital conditions using a laryngoscope with Miller or Macintosh blades is varied and ranges from 63.4 to 82 %. “What is New” • This work is the first one evaluating mentioned airway devices in pediatric CPR provided by paramedics.• The results of this work can influence choice of airway device for clinical use in pediatric CPR.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, a training minikin resembling a 6 years old was used in the study and intubation was performed with Macintosh blade. However, it should be noted that the effectiveness of intubation on children performed by paramedics in prehospital conditions using a laryngoscope with Miller or Macintosh blades is varied and ranges from 63.4 to 77 % [ 8 , 9 , 35 , 38 ]. The problem of unsatisfactory efficacy of the first attempts of pediatric intubation applies not only to paramedics, but also to doctors who are not anesthesiologists [ 3 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the TruView PCD video laryngoscope and macintosh laryngoscope for pediatric tracheal intubation by novice paramedics: a randomized crossover simulation trial

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the TruView video laryngoscope (TruView) facilitates pediatric endotracheal intubation (ETI) more quickly and safely than conventional Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) in three manikin-based airway scenarios. This was a randomized crossover manikin study including 120 novice paramedics. The participants performed tracheal intubations using both TruView and MAC on a pediatric manikin in a control scenario (A), chest compression scenario (B), and chest compression cervical stabilization scenario (C). The sequence of scenarios was randomized. The primary outcome was time to intubation. Secondary outcomes were overall success rates, incidence of dental trauma, and ease of intubation. All intubation attempts were assessed by a trained assistant. The overall success rate was significantly higher with the TruView compared than the MAC in scenario B (100 vs. 81.7 %; p = 0.011) and scenario C (100 vs. 68.3 %; p < 0.001). The intubation time was significantly lower with the TruView than the MAC (18.5 vs. 24.3 s, p = 0.017, for scenario A; 21.6 vs. 25.7 s, p = 0.023, for scenario B; and 28.9 vs. 45.4 s, p < 0.001, for scenario C). Glottic view quality was better with TruView than the MAC in all scenarios, p < 0.001.Conclusions: The TruView offers better intubation conditions than the MAC on a pediatric manikin in the control scenario, chest compression scenario, and chest compression scenario with cervical stabilization scenario. The TruView may be used to elevate the epiglottis for orotracheal intubation. Further clinical studies are necessary to confirm these initial positive findings.Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02289872. What is Known: •Prehospital pediatric intubation using a standard laryngoscope is varied and ranges from 63.4 to 82 %. What is New: •This is the first study showing efficiency of pediatric endotracheal intubation using the TruView PCD by paramedics in tree simulation scenarios. •TruView PCD offers better pediatric intubation conditions than the Macintosh laryngoscope.

show abstract

“…[4,5] oraz Toffelsena i wsp. [6], jest niewystarczająca i wynosi 63,4-79,8%. W celu zwiększenia efektywności intubacji pomocne mogą okazać się alternatywne w stosunku do laryngoskopii bezpośredniej techniki intubacji -jak np.…”

Section: Wstępunclassified

“…Gerritse i wsp. wskazują na skuteczność intubacji dziecka wykonywanej przez ratowników medycznych w warunkach przedszpitalnych na poziomie 63,4-77% [4,5], zaś Tollefsen -79,8% [6]. Problem niskiej skuteczności intubacji dotchawiczej dzieci nie dotyczy tylko opieki przedszpitalnej i nie odnosi się wyłącznie do grupy ratowników medycznych.…”

Section: Omówienieunclassified

Porównanie skuteczności Pentax AWS S-100 i laryngoskopu z łopatką Macintosha podczas intubacji dotchawiczej dziecka w warunkach symulowanej resuscytacji – badanie randomizowane

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

196 Out-of-Hospital Pediatric Endotracheal Intubation by Air Transport Providers Results of the National Emergency Airway (NEAR) Vi Database

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial

Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial

Comparison of the TruView PCD video laryngoscope and macintosh laryngoscope for pediatric tracheal intubation by novice paramedics: a randomized crossover simulation trial

Porównanie skuteczności Pentax AWS S-100 i laryngoskopu z łopatką Macintosha podczas intubacji dotchawiczej dziecka w warunkach symulowanej resuscytacji – badanie randomizowane

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About