Comparison of video and conventional laryngoscopes for simulated difficult emergency tracheal intubations in the presence of liquids in the airway.

• Main Authors: Kei Suzuki, Shinji Kusunoki, Takuma Sadamori, Yuko Tanabe, Junji Itai, Nobuaki Shime
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
• Series: PLoS ONE
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220006

The presence of vomit, blood, or other foreign liquid materials in the upper airway is a major obstacle in difficult tracheal intubations (TIs) especially in prehospital care. However, the usefulness of video laryngoscopes (VLs) in these situations has not been investigated. The objective of this study was to compare the Airway Scope (AWS) and the Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) for their performance in TIs performed by emergency medical technicians (EMTs) using mannequin models with liquids in the airway. Rice gruel and mock blood were used to fill the upper airways of mannequins to create mock vomit and hematemesis models, respectively. TIs were performed by certified EMTs after visualizing the glottis using an AWS with an 18-Fr suction catheter and a ML with an 18-Fr suction catheter. TIs with AWS and ML were performed in random order in a comparative crossover trial. The TI success rate was evaluated based on the following: (a) the time taken from laryngoscope insertion into the oral cavity to glottis visualization, tracheal tube passage through the glottis, until the initiation of ventilation and (b) the subjective level of difficulty, which was assessed using a visual analog scale (VAS). TIs in vomiting and hematemesis scenarios were performed by 25 and 26 EMTs, respectively. The TI success rates for these scenarios were 100% with both AWS and ML. The median time required until successful ventilation was significantly shorter with AWS than with ML in both the vomiting (42 vs. 58 s) and hematemesis models (33 vs. 39 s), respectively. In the hematemesis scenarios, difficulty assessed using a VAS was lower with AWS than with ML (13 vs. 38 in median), respectively. Compared to the ML, the AWS was capable of faster and easier TIs, in a simulated model of liquid foreign material in the upper airway.