New Versus Old, The i-View Video Laryngoscope Versus the GlideScope: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Trial.

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,&nbsp;Eric M Wagner,&nbsp;Jerry S Hu,&nbsp;Michael R Tobin,&nbsp;Aaron J Cronin,&nbsp;Kyle S Couperus,&nbsp;Michael D April,&nbsp;Steven G Schauer,&nbsp;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.

新与旧,i-View视频喉镜与滑梯镜:前瞻性,随机,交叉试验。
背景:一种新型视频喉镜设备,i-view,可以将插管能力扩展到部署军事医学的最低梯队。i-view是一次性使用的喉镜。我们在模拟环境中比较了i-view和GlideScope在军事急救医学提供者中完成气管插管(ETI)的时间。方法:我们进行了一项前瞻性、随机、交叉试验。我们将参与者随机分配到i-view或GlideScope,然后使用每种设备进行2次ei -1。主要指标为ETI完成时间。次要结果包括首次通过成功、最佳声门视图和最终用户评价。我们在所有插管中使用了一个气道管理培训师。结果:33名急诊医师参与。GlideScope的ETI时间比i-view短(22.2 +/- 9.0秒vs 30.2 +/- 24.0秒);p = 0.048)。使用Cormack-Lehan量表的最佳声门视图也倾向于GlideScope (2 [1,2] vs . 2[2,2]);p = 0.044)。第一次通过的成功率没有差别(100%和100%)。更多的参与者更喜欢GlideScope(24比9;p = 0.165);然而,参与者一致认为,在严峻的环境下,i-view比GlideScope更容易使用(4[4,5])。结论:我们发现GlideScope在手术完成时间方面优于i-view。参与者更喜欢GlideScope而不是i-view,但他们指出,在严格的环境下,i-view比GlideScope更容易使用。我们的研究结果表明,对于美国军方来说,i-view可能是GlideScope的合适替代品,特别是对于那些在院前环境中的人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信