特种作战医务人员测试新型iView视频喉镜:一项前瞻性、随机、交叉试验。

Philip Castaneda, Timothy S Kim, Jeremiah D Beck, Aaron J Cronin, Katrina S Monti, Eric M Wagner, Troy H Patience, Michael D April, Steven G Schauer, V F Naylor
{"title":"特种作战医务人员测试新型iView视频喉镜:一项前瞻性、随机、交叉试验。","authors":"Philip Castaneda,&nbsp;Timothy S Kim,&nbsp;Jeremiah D Beck,&nbsp;Aaron J Cronin,&nbsp;Katrina S Monti,&nbsp;Eric M Wagner,&nbsp;Troy H Patience,&nbsp;Michael D April,&nbsp;Steven G Schauer,&nbsp;V F Naylor","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Airway compromise is the second leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Special operations medic comprise the majority of medics trained to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI), mostly by way of direct laryngoscopy (DL). The iView is a disposable, low-cost video laryngoscopy (VL) device, enabling its distribution to prehospital medical providers. We seek to compare time to intubation between DL and iView VL among special operations combat medics (SOCM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. We enrolled special operations medics assigned to Joint Base Lewis McChord, WA. We randomized subjects to first performing VL or DL. Subjects performed a total of 10 ETI, 5 by VL and 5 by DL, on adult airway manikins. The primary outcome was time (in seconds) for ETI completion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 medics completed 160 with DL ETIs and 160 VL ETIs. A total of 10 of 32 (31.3%) medics reported no previous experience with VL devices. We found a significant difference in time to intubation between VL and DL (20.4 (95% CI 20.6 - 26.1) seconds versus 23.4 (95% CI 18.7 - 22.2) seconds; p = 0.03) in favor of VL. All VL attempts were successful while 96.9% of DL were successful (p = 0.10). With respect to end-user appraisal of devices, a significant number of medics preferred the iView VL over DL (23 versus 9; p is less than 0.00001). Additionally, medics considered iView VL easier to use (5 [5-6] versus 5 [4-5]; p=0.0004) and easier to learn, remember, and perform by combat medics (5 [5-5] versus 4 [4-5]; p=0.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Special operations medics naïve to VL rapidly learned how to effectively utilize iView VL, as evidenced by a significant difference in time to intubation in favor of iView VL. Additionally, most medics favored iView VL and considered it easy to use, learn, and remember.</p>","PeriodicalId":74148,"journal":{"name":"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)","volume":" PB 8-21-04/05/06","pages":"44-51"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Special Operations Medics Test the Novel iView Video Laryngoscope: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Philip Castaneda,&nbsp;Timothy S Kim,&nbsp;Jeremiah D Beck,&nbsp;Aaron J Cronin,&nbsp;Katrina S Monti,&nbsp;Eric M Wagner,&nbsp;Troy H Patience,&nbsp;Michael D April,&nbsp;Steven G Schauer,&nbsp;V F Naylor\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Airway compromise is the second leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Special operations medic comprise the majority of medics trained to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI), mostly by way of direct laryngoscopy (DL). The iView is a disposable, low-cost video laryngoscopy (VL) device, enabling its distribution to prehospital medical providers. We seek to compare time to intubation between DL and iView VL among special operations combat medics (SOCM).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. We enrolled special operations medics assigned to Joint Base Lewis McChord, WA. We randomized subjects to first performing VL or DL. Subjects performed a total of 10 ETI, 5 by VL and 5 by DL, on adult airway manikins. The primary outcome was time (in seconds) for ETI completion.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 medics completed 160 with DL ETIs and 160 VL ETIs. A total of 10 of 32 (31.3%) medics reported no previous experience with VL devices. We found a significant difference in time to intubation between VL and DL (20.4 (95% CI 20.6 - 26.1) seconds versus 23.4 (95% CI 18.7 - 22.2) seconds; p = 0.03) in favor of VL. All VL attempts were successful while 96.9% of DL were successful (p = 0.10). With respect to end-user appraisal of devices, a significant number of medics preferred the iView VL over DL (23 versus 9; p is less than 0.00001). Additionally, medics considered iView VL easier to use (5 [5-6] versus 5 [4-5]; p=0.0004) and easier to learn, remember, and perform by combat medics (5 [5-5] versus 4 [4-5]; p=0.008).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Special operations medics naïve to VL rapidly learned how to effectively utilize iView VL, as evidenced by a significant difference in time to intubation in favor of iView VL. Additionally, most medics favored iView VL and considered it easy to use, learn, and remember.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medical journal (Fort Sam Houston, Tex.)\",\"volume\":\" PB 8-21-04/05/06\",\"pages\":\"44-51\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"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}","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

摘要

背景:气道损伤是战场上可预防性死亡的第二大原因。特种手术医生包括大多数接受过气管插管(ETI)训练的医生,主要是通过直接喉镜检查(DL)。iView是一种一次性、低成本的视频喉镜(VL)设备,使其能够分发给院前医疗提供者。我们试图在特种作战医务人员(SOCM)中比较DL和iView VL的插管时间。方法:我们进行了一项前瞻性、随机、交叉试验。我们招募了分配到华盛顿州刘易斯麦科德联合基地的特种作战医务人员。我们将受试者随机分为先行VL或DL。受试者对成人气道模型共进行了10次ETI, 5次VL, 5次DL。主要结果是ETI完成的时间(以秒为单位)。结果:32名医护人员分别完成了160例DL ETIs和160例VL ETIs。32名医务人员中有10名(31.3%)报告以前没有使用VL装置的经验。我们发现VL和DL在插管时间上有显著差异(20.4 (95% CI 20.6 - 26.1)秒vs . 23.4 (95% CI 18.7 - 22.2)秒;p = 0.03),有利于VL。所有VL尝试均成功,而DL尝试成功率为96.9% (p = 0.10)。就终端用户对设备的评估而言,相当多的医生更喜欢iView VL而不是DL(23对9;P < 0.00001)。此外,医务人员认为iView VL更易于使用(5 [5-6]vs . 5 [4-5];P =0.0004),并且战斗医务人员更容易学习、记忆和执行(5 [5-5]vs . 4 [4-5]);p = 0.008)。结论:naïve到VL的特种作战医务人员迅速学会了如何有效地利用iView VL, iView VL在插管时间上有显著差异。此外,大多数医生喜欢iView VL,认为它易于使用、学习和记忆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Special Operations Medics Test the Novel iView Video Laryngoscope: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Trial.

Background: Airway compromise is the second leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Special operations medic comprise the majority of medics trained to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI), mostly by way of direct laryngoscopy (DL). The iView is a disposable, low-cost video laryngoscopy (VL) device, enabling its distribution to prehospital medical providers. We seek to compare time to intubation between DL and iView VL among special operations combat medics (SOCM).

Methods: We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. We enrolled special operations medics assigned to Joint Base Lewis McChord, WA. We randomized subjects to first performing VL or DL. Subjects performed a total of 10 ETI, 5 by VL and 5 by DL, on adult airway manikins. The primary outcome was time (in seconds) for ETI completion.

Results: A total of 32 medics completed 160 with DL ETIs and 160 VL ETIs. A total of 10 of 32 (31.3%) medics reported no previous experience with VL devices. We found a significant difference in time to intubation between VL and DL (20.4 (95% CI 20.6 - 26.1) seconds versus 23.4 (95% CI 18.7 - 22.2) seconds; p = 0.03) in favor of VL. All VL attempts were successful while 96.9% of DL were successful (p = 0.10). With respect to end-user appraisal of devices, a significant number of medics preferred the iView VL over DL (23 versus 9; p is less than 0.00001). Additionally, medics considered iView VL easier to use (5 [5-6] versus 5 [4-5]; p=0.0004) and easier to learn, remember, and perform by combat medics (5 [5-5] versus 4 [4-5]; p=0.008).

Conclusions: Special operations medics naïve to VL rapidly learned how to effectively utilize iView VL, as evidenced by a significant difference in time to intubation in favor of iView VL. Additionally, most medics favored iView VL and considered it easy to use, learn, and remember.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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