{"title":"使用Macintosh和King Vision视频喉镜在人体模型上使用冠状病毒2019屏障盒进行气管插管的比较:一项随机交叉研究。","authors":"Satyabrata Guru, Neha Singh, Sangeeta Sahoo, Upendra Hansda, Chittaranjan Mohanty","doi":"10.4103/2452-2473.348436","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus usually spreads through aerosol and close contact. Frontline health-care workers handle aerosol-generating procedures like endotracheal intubation. To reduce this risk, COVID-19 barrier box came into the picture. However, the COVID-19 barrier box may compromise easy and successful intubation, and their limitation must be studied.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to assess the time to successful intubation with or without the COVID-19 barrier box using the Macintosh laryngoscope and King Vision video laryngoscope (KVVL). We also assessed the first-pass success rate, ease of intubation, Cormack-Lehane (CL) grade, and requirement of external laryngeal manipulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted this manikin-based randomized crossover study to assess the time to successful intubation by anesthesiologists (22) and emergency physicians (11) having 1 year or more experience with or without COVID-19 barrier box by using the Macintosh laryngoscope and KVVL. Our study randomized the sequence of the four different intubation scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The comparison of mean duration of intubation between KVVL (13.21 ± 4.05 s) and Macintosh laryngoscope (12.89 ± 4.28 s) with COVID-19 barrier box was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: 1.21-0.97). The ease of intubation, number of attempts, and requirement of external laryngeal manipulation were not statistically significant. Intubations were statistically significant more difficult with barrier box in view of higher CL grade.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Time to intubation was longer with COVID-19 barrier box using KVVL as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope which was statistically not significant.</p>","PeriodicalId":46536,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/aa/47/TJEM-22-149.PMC9355073.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of endotracheal intubation with Macintosh versus King Vision video laryngoscope using coronavirus disease 2019 barrier box on manikins: A randomized crossover study.\",\"authors\":\"Satyabrata Guru, Neha Singh, Sangeeta Sahoo, Upendra Hansda, Chittaranjan Mohanty\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/2452-2473.348436\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus usually spreads through aerosol and close contact. Frontline health-care workers handle aerosol-generating procedures like endotracheal intubation. To reduce this risk, COVID-19 barrier box came into the picture. However, the COVID-19 barrier box may compromise easy and successful intubation, and their limitation must be studied.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this study was to assess the time to successful intubation with or without the COVID-19 barrier box using the Macintosh laryngoscope and King Vision video laryngoscope (KVVL). We also assessed the first-pass success rate, ease of intubation, Cormack-Lehane (CL) grade, and requirement of external laryngeal manipulation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted this manikin-based randomized crossover study to assess the time to successful intubation by anesthesiologists (22) and emergency physicians (11) having 1 year or more experience with or without COVID-19 barrier box by using the Macintosh laryngoscope and KVVL. Our study randomized the sequence of the four different intubation scenarios.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The comparison of mean duration of intubation between KVVL (13.21 ± 4.05 s) and Macintosh laryngoscope (12.89 ± 4.28 s) with COVID-19 barrier box was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: 1.21-0.97). The ease of intubation, number of attempts, and requirement of external laryngeal manipulation were not statistically significant. Intubations were statistically significant more difficult with barrier box in view of higher CL grade.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Time to intubation was longer with COVID-19 barrier box using KVVL as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope which was statistically not significant.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46536,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/aa/47/TJEM-22-149.PMC9355073.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.348436\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.348436","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of endotracheal intubation with Macintosh versus King Vision video laryngoscope using coronavirus disease 2019 barrier box on manikins: A randomized crossover study.
Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) virus usually spreads through aerosol and close contact. Frontline health-care workers handle aerosol-generating procedures like endotracheal intubation. To reduce this risk, COVID-19 barrier box came into the picture. However, the COVID-19 barrier box may compromise easy and successful intubation, and their limitation must be studied.
Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the time to successful intubation with or without the COVID-19 barrier box using the Macintosh laryngoscope and King Vision video laryngoscope (KVVL). We also assessed the first-pass success rate, ease of intubation, Cormack-Lehane (CL) grade, and requirement of external laryngeal manipulation.
Methods: We conducted this manikin-based randomized crossover study to assess the time to successful intubation by anesthesiologists (22) and emergency physicians (11) having 1 year or more experience with or without COVID-19 barrier box by using the Macintosh laryngoscope and KVVL. Our study randomized the sequence of the four different intubation scenarios.
Results: The comparison of mean duration of intubation between KVVL (13.21 ± 4.05 s) and Macintosh laryngoscope (12.89 ± 4.28 s) with COVID-19 barrier box was not statistically significant (95% confidence interval: 1.21-0.97). The ease of intubation, number of attempts, and requirement of external laryngeal manipulation were not statistically significant. Intubations were statistically significant more difficult with barrier box in view of higher CL grade.
Conclusion: Time to intubation was longer with COVID-19 barrier box using KVVL as compared to Macintosh laryngoscope which was statistically not significant.
期刊介绍：
The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine (Turk J Emerg Med) is an International, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes clinical and experimental trials, case reports, invited reviews, case images, letters to the Editor, and interesting research conducted in all fields of Emergency Medicine. The Journal is the official scientific publication of the Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey (EMAT) and is printed four times a year, in January, April, July and October. The language of the journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted. The authors are responsible for the scientific content of the material to be published. The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine reserves the right to request any research materials on which the paper is based. The Editorial Board of the Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the US National Library of Medicine, the US Office of Research Integrity, the European Association of Science Editors, and the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
