Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment
Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for en...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | The American journal of emergency medicine 2022-03, Vol.53, p.122-126 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 126 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | |
| container_start_page | 122 |
| container_title | The American journal of emergency medicine |
| container_volume | 53 |
| creator | Szarpak, Lukasz Peacock, Frank W. Rafique, Zubaid Ladny, Jerzy R. Nadolny, Klaudiusz Malysz, Marek Dabrowski, Marek Chirico, Francesco Smereka, Jacek |
| description | Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).
Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded.
Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers.
We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43–92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of −48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], −60.23, −35.77; p |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.12.069 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8731221</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0735675721010482</els_id><sourcerecordid>2627454076</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-c8429841967459132a29e9fa7438fa2eb26fc25f58610693911ca70e13ea417a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9Udtq3DAUFCGl2Wz7A3kogjzb1ZFky4YSKEvSFFL60Mur0GqPNzJry5HsDfmI_ko_ol9WuZuG9KVPAp2ZOXNmCDkDlgOD8m2bmxa7nDMOOfCclfURWUAheFaBgmOyYEoUWakKdUJOY2wZA5CFfElORJH4rJYL8mPlu8EEF31PfUO_O6RfrB_w109q-g39ZKzrRx9v6c6Eh37r4zyMtPGBpsG0NqNLzM0UXL-lAeMUrRsPn-sHmpRNhxtnI71H8wczYEi7zI4OwY9oR7dHineTGzrsx1fkRWN2EV8_vkvy7ery6-o6u_n84ePq_U1mZSXGzFaS15WEulSyqEFww2usG6OkqBrDcc3LxvKiKaoSUiqiBrBGMQSBRoIyYkkuDrrDtE7-bFodzE4PwXXpTO2N0_9Oenert36vKyWAc0gC548Cwd9NGEfd-imks6LmJU-uJFNlQvEDygYfY8DmaQMwPVeoWz1XqOcKNXA9m12SN8-9PVH-dpYA7w4ATAntHQadMsfeppxDClRvvPuf_m-P47HU</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2627454076</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier)</source><source>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</source><creator>Szarpak, Lukasz ; Peacock, Frank W. ; Rafique, Zubaid ; Ladny, Jerzy R. ; Nadolny, Klaudiusz ; Malysz, Marek ; Dabrowski, Marek ; Chirico, Francesco ; Smereka, Jacek</creator><creatorcontrib>Szarpak, Lukasz ; Peacock, Frank W. ; Rafique, Zubaid ; Ladny, Jerzy R. ; Nadolny, Klaudiusz ; Malysz, Marek ; Dabrowski, Marek ; Chirico, Francesco ; Smereka, Jacek</creatorcontrib><description>Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).
Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded.
Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers.
We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43–92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of −48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], −60.23, −35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001).
The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608</description><identifier>ISSN: 0735-6757</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-8171</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.12.069</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35016094</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject><![CDATA[Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Airway management ; Airway Management - instrumentation ; Airway Management - methods ; Airway Management - statistics & numerical data ; Allied Health Personnel - standards ; Allied Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data ; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation ; Coronaviruses ; COVID-19 ; Emergency medical care ; Emergency medical services ; Endotracheal intubation ; Female ; Health services ; Heart ; Humans ; Intubation ; Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation ; Intubation, Intratracheal - methods ; Intubation, Intratracheal - statistics & numerical data ; Laryngoscopes - standards ; Laryngoscopes - statistics & numerical data ; Laryngoscopy ; Male ; Medical personnel ; Middle Aged ; Patients ; Personal protective equipment ; Personal Protective Equipment - adverse effects ; Personal Protective Equipment - standards ; Personal Protective Equipment - statistics & numerical data ; Prospective Studies ; Protective equipment ; Resuscitation - instrumentation ; Resuscitation - methods ; Resuscitation - statistics & numerical data ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ; Software]]></subject><ispartof>The American journal of emergency medicine, 2022-03, Vol.53, p.122-126</ispartof><rights>2022 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>2022. Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2022 Elsevier Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-c8429841967459132a29e9fa7438fa2eb26fc25f58610693911ca70e13ea417a3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-c8429841967459132a29e9fa7438fa2eb26fc25f58610693911ca70e13ea417a3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/2627454076?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,3550,27924,27925,45995,64385,64389,72469</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35016094$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Szarpak, Lukasz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peacock, Frank W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rafique, Zubaid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ladny, Jerzy R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nadolny, Klaudiusz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malysz, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dabrowski, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chirico, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smereka, Jacek</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment</title><title>The American journal of emergency medicine</title><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><description>Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).
Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded.
Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers.
We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43–92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of −48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], −60.23, −35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001).
The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Airway management</subject><subject>Airway Management - instrumentation</subject><subject>Airway Management - methods</subject><subject>Airway Management - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Allied Health Personnel - standards</subject><subject>Allied Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Cardiopulmonary resuscitation</subject><subject>Coronaviruses</subject><subject>COVID-19</subject><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Emergency medical services</subject><subject>Endotracheal intubation</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Health services</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - methods</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Laryngoscopes - standards</subject><subject>Laryngoscopes - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Laryngoscopy</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Personal protective equipment</subject><subject>Personal Protective Equipment - adverse effects</subject><subject>Personal Protective Equipment - standards</subject><subject>Personal Protective Equipment - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Protective equipment</subject><subject>Resuscitation - instrumentation</subject><subject>Resuscitation - methods</subject><subject>Resuscitation - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>SARS-CoV-2</subject><subject>Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2</subject><subject>Software</subject><issn>0735-6757</issn><issn>1532-8171</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp9Udtq3DAUFCGl2Wz7A3kogjzb1ZFky4YSKEvSFFL60Mur0GqPNzJry5HsDfmI_ko_ol9WuZuG9KVPAp2ZOXNmCDkDlgOD8m2bmxa7nDMOOfCclfURWUAheFaBgmOyYEoUWakKdUJOY2wZA5CFfElORJH4rJYL8mPlu8EEF31PfUO_O6RfrB_w109q-g39ZKzrRx9v6c6Eh37r4zyMtPGBpsG0NqNLzM0UXL-lAeMUrRsPn-sHmpRNhxtnI71H8wczYEi7zI4OwY9oR7dHineTGzrsx1fkRWN2EV8_vkvy7ery6-o6u_n84ePq_U1mZSXGzFaS15WEulSyqEFww2usG6OkqBrDcc3LxvKiKaoSUiqiBrBGMQSBRoIyYkkuDrrDtE7-bFodzE4PwXXpTO2N0_9Oenert36vKyWAc0gC548Cwd9NGEfd-imks6LmJU-uJFNlQvEDygYfY8DmaQMwPVeoWz1XqOcKNXA9m12SN8-9PVH-dpYA7w4ATAntHQadMsfeppxDClRvvPuf_m-P47HU</recordid><startdate>20220301</startdate><enddate>20220301</enddate><creator>Szarpak, Lukasz</creator><creator>Peacock, Frank W.</creator><creator>Rafique, Zubaid</creator><creator>Ladny, Jerzy R.</creator><creator>Nadolny, Klaudiusz</creator><creator>Malysz, Marek</creator><creator>Dabrowski, Marek</creator><creator>Chirico, Francesco</creator><creator>Smereka, Jacek</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>Elsevier Limited</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>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20220301</creationdate><title>Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment</title><author>Szarpak, Lukasz ; Peacock, Frank W. ; Rafique, Zubaid ; Ladny, Jerzy R. ; Nadolny, Klaudiusz ; Malysz, Marek ; Dabrowski, Marek ; Chirico, Francesco ; Smereka, Jacek</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-c8429841967459132a29e9fa7438fa2eb26fc25f58610693911ca70e13ea417a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Airway management</topic><topic>Airway Management - instrumentation</topic><topic>Airway Management - methods</topic><topic>Airway Management - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Allied Health Personnel - standards</topic><topic>Allied Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Cardiopulmonary resuscitation</topic><topic>Coronaviruses</topic><topic>COVID-19</topic><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Emergency medical services</topic><topic>Endotracheal intubation</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Health services</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - methods</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Laryngoscopes - standards</topic><topic>Laryngoscopes - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Laryngoscopy</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Personal protective equipment</topic><topic>Personal Protective Equipment - adverse effects</topic><topic>Personal Protective Equipment - standards</topic><topic>Personal Protective Equipment - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Protective equipment</topic><topic>Resuscitation - instrumentation</topic><topic>Resuscitation - methods</topic><topic>Resuscitation - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>SARS-CoV-2</topic><topic>Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2</topic><topic>Software</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Szarpak, Lukasz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Peacock, Frank W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rafique, Zubaid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ladny, Jerzy R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nadolny, Klaudiusz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Malysz, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dabrowski, Marek</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chirico, Francesco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Smereka, Jacek</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Proquest Nursing & Allied Health Source</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Szarpak, Lukasz</au><au>Peacock, Frank W.</au><au>Rafique, Zubaid</au><au>Ladny, Jerzy R.</au><au>Nadolny, Klaudiusz</au><au>Malysz, Marek</au><au>Dabrowski, Marek</au><au>Chirico, Francesco</au><au>Smereka, Jacek</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment</atitle><jtitle>The American journal of emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Am J Emerg Med</addtitle><date>2022-03-01</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>53</volume><spage>122</spage><epage>126</epage><pages>122-126</pages><issn>0735-6757</issn><eissn>1532-8171</eissn><abstract>Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).
Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded.
Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers.
We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43–92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of −48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], −60.23, −35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001).
The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures.
Trial registration: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>35016094</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.ajem.2021.12.069</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0735-6757 |
| ispartof | The American journal of emergency medicine, 2022-03, Vol.53, p.122-126 |
| issn | 0735-6757 1532-8171 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8731221 |
| source | MEDLINE; Access via ScienceDirect (Elsevier); ProQuest Central UK/Ireland |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Airway management Airway Management - instrumentation Airway Management - methods Airway Management - statistics & numerical data Allied Health Personnel - standards Allied Health Personnel - statistics & numerical data Cardiopulmonary resuscitation Coronaviruses COVID-19 Emergency medical care Emergency medical services Endotracheal intubation Female Health services Heart Humans Intubation Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation Intubation, Intratracheal - methods Intubation, Intratracheal - statistics & numerical data Laryngoscopes - standards Laryngoscopes - statistics & numerical data Laryngoscopy Male Medical personnel Middle Aged Patients Personal protective equipment Personal Protective Equipment - adverse effects Personal Protective Equipment - standards Personal Protective Equipment - statistics & numerical data Prospective Studies Protective equipment Resuscitation - instrumentation Resuscitation - methods Resuscitation - statistics & numerical data SARS-CoV-2 Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 Software |
| title | Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-20T10%3A01%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Vie%20Scope%C2%AE%20and%20Macintosh%20laryngoscopes%20for%20intubation%20during%20resuscitation%20by%20paramedics%20wearing%20personal%20protective%20equipment&rft.jtitle=The%20American%20journal%20of%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Szarpak,%20Lukasz&rft.date=2022-03-01&rft.volume=53&rft.spage=122&rft.epage=126&rft.pages=122-126&rft.issn=0735-6757&rft.eissn=1532-8171&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ajem.2021.12.069&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2627454076%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2627454076&rft_id=info:pmid/35016094&rft_els_id=S0735675721010482&rfr_iscdi=true |