Are nurses able to perform blind intubation? Randomized comparison of I-gel and laryngeal mask airway

A randomized crossover comparison of the bébé VieScope and direct laryngoscope for pediatric airway management by nurses in medical simulation settings

BACKGROUND

Airway management in life-threatening emergencies is essential for children, and endotracheal intubation is the gold standard. It protects against regurgitation and enables mechanical ventilation. New types of airway management equipment are being developed and implemented to meet the needs of medical personnel.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

This prospective, randomized, cross-over simulation trial evaluated the success of endotracheal intubation in three scenarios: normal airway (scenario-A), tongue edema (scenario-B), and continuous chest compression (scenario-C), using the bébé Vie Scope™ laryngoscope (VieScope) and the Macintosh blade laryngoscope (MAC) as a comparative tool performed by nurses with limited tracheal intubation experience.

RESULTS

The results of the study showed that in scenario-A, there were no significant differences in the first attempt success rate or endotracheal intubation time between VieScope and MAC. However, VieScope was associated with better visualization of the glottis. In scenarios B and C, VieScope was significantly more effective than MAC in terms of first-pass success rate, time to intubate, Cormack-Lehane grade, POGO score, and ease of endotracheal intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

Bébé VieScope may be useful for endotracheal intubation in pediatric patients, particularly in cases of tongue edema and ongoing chest compression, providing a higher first-pass success rate than conventional laryngoscopes.

Comparison of blind intubation with different supraglottic airway devices by inexperienced physicians in several airway scenarios: a manikin study

Endotracheal intubation is the gold standard for airway management. Supraglottic airway devices (SADs) are useful in airway abnormalities. SAD blind intubation enables airway management with better ventilation and a reduced risk of gastric content aspiration. The aim was to compare various SADs in blind intubation performed by inexperienced physicians in several pediatric airway scenarios. One hundred sixteen physicians with no previous experience with SAD performed blind endotracheal intubations with (1) iGEL, (2) Air-Q intubating laryngeal airway, and (3) Ambu AuraGain disposable laryngeal mask in a pediatric manikin in three airway scenarios: (A) normal airway without chest compressions, (B) normal airway with continuous chest compressions with the CORPULS CPR system, and (C) difficult airway with continuous chest compressions with the CORPULS CPR system. Intubation tube with 5.0 internal diameter was used for all blind intubation attempts. First intubation success rate, median time to SAD placement, time to endotracheal intubation with SAD, and ease to perform the intubation were investigated in this study. All these parameters were better or non-inferior for iGEL in all investigated scenarios.Conclusion: Our manikin study demonstrated that iGEL was the most effective device for blind intubation by inexperienced physicians in different pediatric airway scenarios. What is Known: • For pediatric resuscitation, bag-mask ventilation is the first-line method for airway control and ventilation. • Endotracheal intubation is considered by many scientific societies the gold standard for airway management. • Supraglottic airway devices are particularly useful when bag-mask ventilation is difficult or impossible but can be also used for blind intubation. What is New: • The iGEL laryngeal mask turns out the most effective device for blind intubation by inexperienced physicians in different pediatric airway scenarios. • It may be a reasonable first emergency blind intubation technique for inexperienced physicians in pediatric patients in normal airway with and without continuous chest compressions, as well as in difficult airway with continuous chest compressions.

Comparison of blind intubation via supraglottic airway devices versus standard intubation during different airway emergency scenarios in inexperienced hand: Randomized, crossover manikin trial

BACKGROUND

Securing the airway and enabling adequate oxygenation and ventilation is essential during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of the study was to evaluate the success rate of blind intubation via the I-Gel and the Air-Q compared with direct laryngoscopy guided endotracheal intubation by inexperienced physician and to measure time to successful intubation.

METHODS

The study was designed as a randomized, cross-over simulation study. A total of 134 physicians, from specialties other than Anesthesia or Emergency Medicine, who considered themselves skilled in endotracheal intubation but who have never used any kind of supraglottic airway device performed blind intubation via the I-Gel and Air-Q and direct laryngoscopy guided endotracheal intubation in 3 randomized scenarios: normal airway without chest compression during intubation attempt; normal airway with continuous chest compression during intubation attempt; difficult airway with continuous chest compression.

RESULTS

Scenario A: Success rate with initial intubation attempt was 72% for endotracheal intubation, 75% in Air-Q, and 81% in I-Gel. Time to endotracheal intubation and ease of intubation was comparable with all 3 airway devices used. Scenario B: Success rate with the initial intubation attempt was 42% for endotracheal intubation, compared with 75% in Air-Q and 80% in I-Gel. Time for endotracheal intubation was significantly prolonged in endotracheal intubation (42 seconds, 35-49), compared with Air-Q (21 seconds, 18-32) and I-Gel (19 seconds, 17-27). Scenario C: The success rate with the initial intubation attempt was 23% in endotracheal intubation, compared with 65% in Air-Q and 74% in I-Gel. Time to intubation was comparable with both supraglottic airway devices (20 vs 22 seconds) but was significantly shorter compared with endotracheal intubation (50 seconds, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Less to moderately experienced providers are able to perform endotracheal intubation in easy airways but fail during ongoing chest compressions and simulated difficult airway. Consequently, less to moderately experienced providers should refrain from endotracheal intubation during ongoing chest compressions during CPR and in expected difficult airways. Supraglottic airway devices are reliable alternatives and blind intubation through these devices is a valuable airway management strategy.