- 期刊
- OpenAccess
Comparison of Endotracheal Intubations Performed With Direct Laryngoscopy and Video Laryngoscopy Scenarios With and Without Compression: A Manikin-Simulated Study
摘要
Background: In the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation 2019 update, it is recommended that endotracheal intubation (ETI) implementation trainings be held more frequently. There is limited data in the current literature on the comparison of cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance using direct laryngoscopy (DL) and video laryngoscopy (VL) by new ETI operators. The aim of this study was to compare the intubation period of intubations operated with DL and VL for the scenarios with and without compression and to assess the performance criteria of compression and ventilation in a manikin-simulated scenario with compression, for the experienced and new ETI operators. Methods: This manikin trial was carried out through a total of four scenarios, two of which were elective intubation and the other two were intubations with compression. A total of 90 people in 45 groups (each group consists of 2 persons) performed four scenarios in the manikin. Ventilation and compression performance data of the scenarios were recorded. Results: A significant difference was found between the scenarios in terms of intubation period and VL in both scenarios with and without compression (in scenarios with compression, DL: 23.21 ± 11.33, VL: 17.06 ± 4.71, p ＜ 0.001; in scenarios without compression, DL: 19.40 ± 8.03, VL: 15.04 ± 3.31, p ＜ 0.001). In intubation interventions with and without compression, the success rate of DL in the second intervention was more statistically significant compared to VL (p = 0.008 and p = 0.011). In the intubation scenarios with compression, the intubation success rates of the new operators were lower than the experienced participants, and it was statistically significant (p = 0.009). Conclusions: During intubation interventions with and without compression, in terms of the success rate after the first attempt and ensuring adequate airway management, VL was found to be more effective. In all intubation attempts, especially in compression intubations, new operators should be encouraged especially for using VL (at least until they have sufficient experience).
延伸閱讀
- Xue, F. S., Xu, Y. C., Liu, Q. J., Yang, Q. Y., Liu, Y., Liao, X., & Li, X. Y. (2008). Hemodynamic Responses to Tracheal Intubation with the GlideScope(superscript ®) Videolaryngoscope: A Comparison of Oral and Nasal Routes. Acta Anaesthesiologica Taiwanica, 46(1), 8-15. https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=02541319-200803-46-1-8-15-a
- 謝宜哲、陳錦銘、林秀櫻、楊騰方（1994）。Experience of Anesthesia during Transthoracic Endoscopic Sympathectomy for Palmar Hyperhidrosis: Comparison between Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Ventilation and Laryngeal Mask Ventilation。Acta Anaesthesiologica Sinica，32(1)，13-20。https://www.airitilibrary.com/Article/Detail?DocID=P20170519003-199403-201904190011-201904190011-13-20
- Ferrando, C., Aguilar, G., & Belda, F. J. (2011). Comparison of the Laryngeal View during Tracheal Intubation Using Airtraq and Macintosh Laryngoscopes by Unskillful Anesthesiology Residents: A Clinical Study. Anesthesiology Research and Practice, 2011(), 62-66. https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/301057
- Bhushan, D., Nandkumar, S., & Butani, M. (2022). The Comparison Between Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Tube With Respect to Adequacy of Ventilation in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under General Anesthesia-A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study, and Comparative Study. Asian Journal of Anesthesiology, 60(1), 11-18. https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202203_60(1).0002
- Bhushan, D., Nandkumar, S., & Butani, M. (2019). The Comparison Between Supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway and Endotracheal Tube With Respect to Adequacy of Ventilation in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Under General Anesthesia-A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind Study, and Comparative Study. Asian Journal of Anesthesiology, (), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.6859/aja.202202/PP.0001