David H Taylor, Eric M Wagner, Jerry S Hu, Michael R Tobin, Aaron J Cronin, Kyle S Couperus, Michael D April, Steven G Schauer, Jason F Naylor
{"title":"New Versus Old, The i-View Video Laryngoscope Versus the GlideScope: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Trial.","authors":"David H Taylor, Eric M Wagner, Jerry S Hu, Michael R Tobin, Aaron J Cronin, Kyle S Couperus, Michael D April, Steven G Schauer, Jason F Naylor","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A novel video laryngoscope device, the i-view, may extend intubation capability to the lowest echelons of deployed military medicine. The i-view is a one-time use, disposable laryngoscope. We compared time to completion of endotracheal intubation (ETI) between the i-view and GlideScope among military emergency medicine providers in a simulation setting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. We randomized participants to i-view or GlideScope first before they performed 2 ETI-1 with each device. The primary outcome was time to completion of ETI. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, optimal glottic view, and end-user appraisal. We used a Laerdal Airway Management Trainer for all intubations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three emergency medicine providers participated. ETI time was less with GlideScope than i-view (22.2 +/- 9.0 seconds versus 30.2 +/- 24.0 seconds; p=0.048). Optimal glottic views, using the Cormack-Lehan scale, also favored the GlideScope (2 [1,2] versus 2[2,2]; p=0.044). There was no difference in first-pass success rates (100% versus 100%). More participants preferred the GlideScope (24 versus 9; p=0.165); however, participants agreed that the i-view would be easier to use than the GlideScope in an austere environment (4[4,5]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We found the GlideScope outperformed the i-view with respect to procedural completion time. Participants preferred the GlideScope over i-view, but indicated the i-view would be easier to use than the GlideScope in an austere setting. Our findings suggest the i-view may be a suitable alternative to GlideScope for US military providers, especially for those in the prehospital setting.</p>","PeriodicalId":74148,"journal":{"name":"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)","volume":" PB 8-21-07/08/09","pages":"81-89"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: A novel video laryngoscope device, the i-view, may extend intubation capability to the lowest echelons of deployed military medicine. The i-view is a one-time use, disposable laryngoscope. We compared time to completion of endotracheal intubation (ETI) between the i-view and GlideScope among military emergency medicine providers in a simulation setting.
Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. We randomized participants to i-view or GlideScope first before they performed 2 ETI-1 with each device. The primary outcome was time to completion of ETI. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, optimal glottic view, and end-user appraisal. We used a Laerdal Airway Management Trainer for all intubations.
Results: Thirty-three emergency medicine providers participated. ETI time was less with GlideScope than i-view (22.2 +/- 9.0 seconds versus 30.2 +/- 24.0 seconds; p=0.048). Optimal glottic views, using the Cormack-Lehan scale, also favored the GlideScope (2 [1,2] versus 2[2,2]; p=0.044). There was no difference in first-pass success rates (100% versus 100%). More participants preferred the GlideScope (24 versus 9; p=0.165); however, participants agreed that the i-view would be easier to use than the GlideScope in an austere environment (4[4,5]).
Conclusions: We found the GlideScope outperformed the i-view with respect to procedural completion time. Participants preferred the GlideScope over i-view, but indicated the i-view would be easier to use than the GlideScope in an austere setting. Our findings suggest the i-view may be a suitable alternative to GlideScope for US military providers, especially for those in the prehospital setting.