Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial.
European Journal of Pediatrics · 2019-04-11 · Randomised trial
Abstract
With different videolaryngoscopes for pediatric patients available, UEScope can be used in all age groups. The aim of this study was to compare the Miller laryngoscope and UEScope in pediatric intubation by paramedics in different scenarios. Overall, 93 paramedics with no experience in pediatric intubation or videolaryngoscopy performed endotracheal intubation in scenarios: (A) normal airway without chest compressions, (B) difficult airway without chest compressions, (C) normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, (D) difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. Scenario A. Total intubation success with both laryngoscopes: 100%. First-attempt success: 100% for UEScope, 96.8% for Miller. Median intubation time for UEScope: 13 s [IQR, 12.5-17], statistically significantly lower than for Miller: 14 s [IQR, 12-19.5] (p = 0.044). Scenario B. Total efficacy: 81.7% for Miller, 100% for UEScope (p = 0.012). First-attempt success: 48.4% for Miller, 87.1% for UEScope (p = 0.001). Median intubation time: 27 s [IQR, 21-33] with Miller, 15 s [IQR, 14-21] with UEScope (p = 0.001). Scenario C. Total efficiency: 91.4% with Miller, 100% with UEScope (p = 0.018); first-attempt success: 67.7 vs. 90.3% (p = 0.003), respectively. Intubation time: 21 s [IQR, 18-28] for Miller, 15 s [IQR, 12-19.5] for UEScope. Scenario D. Total efficiency: 65.6% with Miller, 98.9% with UEScope (p < 0.001); first-attempt success: 29.1 vs. 72% (p = 0.001), respectively. Intubation time: 38 s [IQR, 23-46] for Miller, 21 s [IQR, 17-25.5] for UEScope.Conclusion: In pediatric normal airway without chest compressions, UEScope is comparable with Miller. In difficult pediatric airways without chest compressions, UEScope offers better first-attempt success, shorted median intubation time, and improved glottic visualization. With uninterrupted chest compressions in normal or difficult airway, UEScope provides a higher first-attempt success, a shorter median intubation time, and a better glottic visualization than Miller laryngoscope. What is Known: • Endotracheal intubation is the gold standard for adult and children airway management. • More than two direct laryngoscopy attempts in children with difficult airways are associated with a high failure rate and increased incidence of severe complications. What is New: • In difficult pediatric airways with or without chest compressions, UEScope in inexperienced providers in simulated settings provides better first-attempt efficiency, median intubation time, and glottic visualization.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Children · Endotracheal intubation · Paramedics & EMTs · Video laryngoscopy
Related articles
- A Comparison of the bébé VieScope™ and Direct Laryngoscope for Use While Wearing PPE-AGP: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Trial. (Children (Basel), 2022)
- Novel airway device Vie Scope in several pediatric airway scenario: A randomized simulation pilot trial. (Medicine (Baltimore), 2020)
- A comparison of McGrath MAC® and standard direct laryngoscopy in simulated immobilized cervical spine pediatric intubation: a manikin study. (Eur J Pediatr, 2017)
- A comparison of the McGrath-MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for child tracheal intubation during resuscitation by paramedics. A randomized, crossover, manikin study. (Am J Emerg Med, 2016)
- Child endotracheal intubation with a Clarus Levitan fiberoptic stylet vs Macintosh laryngoscope during resuscitation performed by paramedics: a randomized crossover manikin trial. (Am J Emerg Med, 2015)
- Comparison of Coopdech®, CoPilot®, Intubrite®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomized, controlled crossover simulation trial. (Eur J Pediatr, 2015)