Loading…

Comparison of Airway Management Methods in Entrapped Patients: A Manikin Study

Introduction: Endotracheal intubation remains one of the most challenging skills in prehospital care. There is a minimal amount of data on the optimal technique to use when managing the airway of an entrapped patient. We hypothesized that use of a blindly placed device would result in both the short...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Prehospital emergency care 2016-09, Vol.20 (5), p.657-661
Main Authors: Martin, Andrew B., Lingg, Jim, Lubin, Jeffrey S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-68e6d8fd41a209994c788fd253a7dde7e5641cf034f5c3b18015919c7e64698b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-68e6d8fd41a209994c788fd253a7dde7e5641cf034f5c3b18015919c7e64698b3
container_end_page 661
container_issue 5
container_start_page 657
container_title Prehospital emergency care
container_volume 20
creator Martin, Andrew B.
Lingg, Jim
Lubin, Jeffrey S.
description Introduction: Endotracheal intubation remains one of the most challenging skills in prehospital care. There is a minimal amount of data on the optimal technique to use when managing the airway of an entrapped patient. We hypothesized that use of a blindly placed device would result in both the shortest time to airway management and highest success rate. Methods: A difficult airway manikin was placed in a cervical collar and secured upside down in an overturned vehicle. Experienced paramedics and prehospital registered nurses used four different methods to secure the airway: direct laryngoscopy, digital intubation, King LT-D, and CMAC video laryngoscopy. Each participant was given three opportunities to secure the airway using each technique in random order. A study investigator timed each attempt and confirmed successful placement, which was determined upon inflation of the manikin's lungs. Intubation success rates were analyzed using a general estimating equations model to account for repeated measures and a linear mixed effects model for average time. Results: Twenty-two prehospital providers participated in the study. The one-pass success rate for the King LT-D was significantly higher than direct laryngoscopy (OR 0.048, CI 0.006-0.351, p < 0.01) and digital intubation (OR 0.040, CI 0.005-0.297, p < 0.01). However, there was no statistical difference between the one-pass success rate of the King LT-D and CMAC video laryngoscopy (OR 0.302, 95% CI 0.026-3.44, p = 0.33). The one-pass median placement time of the King LT-D (22 seconds, IQR 17-26) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than direct laryngoscopy (60 seconds, IQR 42-75), digital intubation (38 seconds, IQR 26-74), and the CMAC (51 seconds, IQR 43-76). Conclusions: In this study, while the King LT-D offered the quickest airway placement, success rates were not significantly greater than intubation using the CMAC video laryngoscope. Intubation using direct laryngoscopy and digital intubation were less successful and took more time. Use of a blindly placed device or a video laryngoscope may provide the best avenues for airway management of entrapped patients.
doi_str_mv 10.3109/10903127.2016.1139218
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_3109_10903127_2016_1139218</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1817556728</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-68e6d8fd41a209994c788fd253a7dde7e5641cf034f5c3b18015919c7e64698b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1PwzAMQCMEYmPwE0A9cumImyZtODFN40PaAAk4R1mTQqBtStJq2r8n1QZHDpZt-dmWHkLngKcEML8KgQkk2TTBwKYAhCeQH6Ax0JTGGDN2GOrAxAM0Qifef-JAJoQdo1HCOE0xkDF6nNu6lc5420S2jGbGbeQ2WslGvutaN1200t2HVT4yTbRoOifbVqvoWXYmDP11NBtY8xWmL12vtqfoqJSV12f7PEFvt4vX-X28fLp7mM-WcUEY62KWa6byUqUgE8w5T4ssD21CicyU0pmmLIWixCQtaUHWkGOgHHiRaZYynq_JBF3u7rbOfvfad6I2vtBVJRttey8gh4xSliV5QOkOLZz13ulStM7U0m0FYDGoFL8qxaBS7FWGvYv9i35da_W39esuADc7wDSldbXcWFcp0cltZV3pZFMYP9z_78cPK-iBVw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1817556728</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Airway Management Methods in Entrapped Patients: A Manikin Study</title><source>Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Medical Collection (Reading list)</source><creator>Martin, Andrew B. ; Lingg, Jim ; Lubin, Jeffrey S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Martin, Andrew B. ; Lingg, Jim ; Lubin, Jeffrey S.</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction: Endotracheal intubation remains one of the most challenging skills in prehospital care. There is a minimal amount of data on the optimal technique to use when managing the airway of an entrapped patient. We hypothesized that use of a blindly placed device would result in both the shortest time to airway management and highest success rate. Methods: A difficult airway manikin was placed in a cervical collar and secured upside down in an overturned vehicle. Experienced paramedics and prehospital registered nurses used four different methods to secure the airway: direct laryngoscopy, digital intubation, King LT-D, and CMAC video laryngoscopy. Each participant was given three opportunities to secure the airway using each technique in random order. A study investigator timed each attempt and confirmed successful placement, which was determined upon inflation of the manikin's lungs. Intubation success rates were analyzed using a general estimating equations model to account for repeated measures and a linear mixed effects model for average time. Results: Twenty-two prehospital providers participated in the study. The one-pass success rate for the King LT-D was significantly higher than direct laryngoscopy (OR 0.048, CI 0.006-0.351, p &lt; 0.01) and digital intubation (OR 0.040, CI 0.005-0.297, p &lt; 0.01). However, there was no statistical difference between the one-pass success rate of the King LT-D and CMAC video laryngoscopy (OR 0.302, 95% CI 0.026-3.44, p = 0.33). The one-pass median placement time of the King LT-D (22 seconds, IQR 17-26) was significantly lower (p &lt; 0.001) than direct laryngoscopy (60 seconds, IQR 42-75), digital intubation (38 seconds, IQR 26-74), and the CMAC (51 seconds, IQR 43-76). Conclusions: In this study, while the King LT-D offered the quickest airway placement, success rates were not significantly greater than intubation using the CMAC video laryngoscope. Intubation using direct laryngoscopy and digital intubation were less successful and took more time. Use of a blindly placed device or a video laryngoscope may provide the best avenues for airway management of entrapped patients.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1090-3127</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1545-0066</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3109/10903127.2016.1139218</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26954013</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Taylor &amp; Francis</publisher><subject>airway management ; Airway Management - methods ; Allied Health Personnel ; Confined Spaces ; Emergency Medical Services - methods ; Humans ; intratracheal ; intubation ; laryngeal masks ; Laryngoscopy - methods ; Manikins ; video laryngoscopy</subject><ispartof>Prehospital emergency care, 2016-09, Vol.20 (5), p.657-661</ispartof><rights>Copyright © Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-68e6d8fd41a209994c788fd253a7dde7e5641cf034f5c3b18015919c7e64698b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-68e6d8fd41a209994c788fd253a7dde7e5641cf034f5c3b18015919c7e64698b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26954013$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Martin, Andrew B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lingg, Jim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lubin, Jeffrey S.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Airway Management Methods in Entrapped Patients: A Manikin Study</title><title>Prehospital emergency care</title><addtitle>Prehosp Emerg Care</addtitle><description>Introduction: Endotracheal intubation remains one of the most challenging skills in prehospital care. There is a minimal amount of data on the optimal technique to use when managing the airway of an entrapped patient. We hypothesized that use of a blindly placed device would result in both the shortest time to airway management and highest success rate. Methods: A difficult airway manikin was placed in a cervical collar and secured upside down in an overturned vehicle. Experienced paramedics and prehospital registered nurses used four different methods to secure the airway: direct laryngoscopy, digital intubation, King LT-D, and CMAC video laryngoscopy. Each participant was given three opportunities to secure the airway using each technique in random order. A study investigator timed each attempt and confirmed successful placement, which was determined upon inflation of the manikin's lungs. Intubation success rates were analyzed using a general estimating equations model to account for repeated measures and a linear mixed effects model for average time. Results: Twenty-two prehospital providers participated in the study. The one-pass success rate for the King LT-D was significantly higher than direct laryngoscopy (OR 0.048, CI 0.006-0.351, p &lt; 0.01) and digital intubation (OR 0.040, CI 0.005-0.297, p &lt; 0.01). However, there was no statistical difference between the one-pass success rate of the King LT-D and CMAC video laryngoscopy (OR 0.302, 95% CI 0.026-3.44, p = 0.33). The one-pass median placement time of the King LT-D (22 seconds, IQR 17-26) was significantly lower (p &lt; 0.001) than direct laryngoscopy (60 seconds, IQR 42-75), digital intubation (38 seconds, IQR 26-74), and the CMAC (51 seconds, IQR 43-76). Conclusions: In this study, while the King LT-D offered the quickest airway placement, success rates were not significantly greater than intubation using the CMAC video laryngoscope. Intubation using direct laryngoscopy and digital intubation were less successful and took more time. Use of a blindly placed device or a video laryngoscope may provide the best avenues for airway management of entrapped patients.</description><subject>airway management</subject><subject>Airway Management - methods</subject><subject>Allied Health Personnel</subject><subject>Confined Spaces</subject><subject>Emergency Medical Services - methods</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>intratracheal</subject><subject>intubation</subject><subject>laryngeal masks</subject><subject>Laryngoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Manikins</subject><subject>video laryngoscopy</subject><issn>1090-3127</issn><issn>1545-0066</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1PwzAMQCMEYmPwE0A9cumImyZtODFN40PaAAk4R1mTQqBtStJq2r8n1QZHDpZt-dmWHkLngKcEML8KgQkk2TTBwKYAhCeQH6Ax0JTGGDN2GOrAxAM0Qifef-JAJoQdo1HCOE0xkDF6nNu6lc5420S2jGbGbeQ2WslGvutaN1200t2HVT4yTbRoOifbVqvoWXYmDP11NBtY8xWmL12vtqfoqJSV12f7PEFvt4vX-X28fLp7mM-WcUEY62KWa6byUqUgE8w5T4ssD21CicyU0pmmLIWixCQtaUHWkGOgHHiRaZYynq_JBF3u7rbOfvfad6I2vtBVJRttey8gh4xSliV5QOkOLZz13ulStM7U0m0FYDGoFL8qxaBS7FWGvYv9i35da_W39esuADc7wDSldbXcWFcp0cltZV3pZFMYP9z_78cPK-iBVw</recordid><startdate>20160902</startdate><enddate>20160902</enddate><creator>Martin, Andrew B.</creator><creator>Lingg, Jim</creator><creator>Lubin, Jeffrey S.</creator><general>Taylor &amp; Francis</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160902</creationdate><title>Comparison of Airway Management Methods in Entrapped Patients: A Manikin Study</title><author>Martin, Andrew B. ; Lingg, Jim ; Lubin, Jeffrey S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-68e6d8fd41a209994c788fd253a7dde7e5641cf034f5c3b18015919c7e64698b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>airway management</topic><topic>Airway Management - methods</topic><topic>Allied Health Personnel</topic><topic>Confined Spaces</topic><topic>Emergency Medical Services - methods</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>intratracheal</topic><topic>intubation</topic><topic>laryngeal masks</topic><topic>Laryngoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Manikins</topic><topic>video laryngoscopy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Martin, Andrew B.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lingg, Jim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lubin, Jeffrey S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Prehospital emergency care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Martin, Andrew B.</au><au>Lingg, Jim</au><au>Lubin, Jeffrey S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Airway Management Methods in Entrapped Patients: A Manikin Study</atitle><jtitle>Prehospital emergency care</jtitle><addtitle>Prehosp Emerg Care</addtitle><date>2016-09-02</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>20</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>657</spage><epage>661</epage><pages>657-661</pages><issn>1090-3127</issn><eissn>1545-0066</eissn><abstract>Introduction: Endotracheal intubation remains one of the most challenging skills in prehospital care. There is a minimal amount of data on the optimal technique to use when managing the airway of an entrapped patient. We hypothesized that use of a blindly placed device would result in both the shortest time to airway management and highest success rate. Methods: A difficult airway manikin was placed in a cervical collar and secured upside down in an overturned vehicle. Experienced paramedics and prehospital registered nurses used four different methods to secure the airway: direct laryngoscopy, digital intubation, King LT-D, and CMAC video laryngoscopy. Each participant was given three opportunities to secure the airway using each technique in random order. A study investigator timed each attempt and confirmed successful placement, which was determined upon inflation of the manikin's lungs. Intubation success rates were analyzed using a general estimating equations model to account for repeated measures and a linear mixed effects model for average time. Results: Twenty-two prehospital providers participated in the study. The one-pass success rate for the King LT-D was significantly higher than direct laryngoscopy (OR 0.048, CI 0.006-0.351, p &lt; 0.01) and digital intubation (OR 0.040, CI 0.005-0.297, p &lt; 0.01). However, there was no statistical difference between the one-pass success rate of the King LT-D and CMAC video laryngoscopy (OR 0.302, 95% CI 0.026-3.44, p = 0.33). The one-pass median placement time of the King LT-D (22 seconds, IQR 17-26) was significantly lower (p &lt; 0.001) than direct laryngoscopy (60 seconds, IQR 42-75), digital intubation (38 seconds, IQR 26-74), and the CMAC (51 seconds, IQR 43-76). Conclusions: In this study, while the King LT-D offered the quickest airway placement, success rates were not significantly greater than intubation using the CMAC video laryngoscope. Intubation using direct laryngoscopy and digital intubation were less successful and took more time. Use of a blindly placed device or a video laryngoscope may provide the best avenues for airway management of entrapped patients.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Taylor &amp; Francis</pub><pmid>26954013</pmid><doi>10.3109/10903127.2016.1139218</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1090-3127
ispartof Prehospital emergency care, 2016-09, Vol.20 (5), p.657-661
issn 1090-3127
1545-0066
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_3109_10903127_2016_1139218
source Taylor and Francis:Jisc Collections:Taylor and Francis Read and Publish Agreement 2024-2025:Medical Collection (Reading list)
subjects airway management
Airway Management - methods
Allied Health Personnel
Confined Spaces
Emergency Medical Services - methods
Humans
intratracheal
intubation
laryngeal masks
Laryngoscopy - methods
Manikins
video laryngoscopy
title Comparison of Airway Management Methods in Entrapped Patients: A Manikin Study
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T10%3A53%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Airway%20Management%20Methods%20in%20Entrapped%20Patients:%20A%20Manikin%20Study&rft.jtitle=Prehospital%20emergency%20care&rft.au=Martin,%20Andrew%20B.&rft.date=2016-09-02&rft.volume=20&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=657&rft.epage=661&rft.pages=657-661&rft.issn=1090-3127&rft.eissn=1545-0066&rft_id=info:doi/10.3109/10903127.2016.1139218&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1817556728%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c366t-68e6d8fd41a209994c788fd253a7dde7e5641cf034f5c3b18015919c7e64698b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1817556728&rft_id=info:pmid/26954013&rfr_iscdi=true