Advertisement

Evaluation of the Storz CMAC®, Glidescope® GVL, AirTraq®, King LTS-D™, and direct laryngoscopy in a simulated difficult airway

Published:January 23, 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2012.10.001

      Abstract

      Objective

      The aim of this study was to compare first-attempt and overall success rates and success rates in relation to placement time among 5 different airway management devices: Storz CMAC, Glidescope GVL, AirTraq, King LTS-D, and direct laryngoscopy (DL).

      Methods

      Emergency medical technician basic (EMT-B), EMT-paramedics (EMT-P), and emergency medicine residents and staff physicians placed each of the 5 devices in a random order into an AirSim (TruCorp, Belfast, UK) part-task training manikin. The difficult airway scenario was created by fixing the manikin head to a stationary object and introducing simulated emesis into the hypopharynx. First-attempt and overall success and success in relation to placement time were compared. Provider feedback about device performance was also evaluated.

      Results

      Ninety-four providers (16 EMT-basics, 54 EMT-paramedics, and 24 emergency department doctors of medicine) consented to participation. First-attempt and overall success rates for DL, King LTS-D, GVL, and CMAC were not statistically different. Compared with DL, the AirTraq was 96% less likely to be placed successfully (odds ratio, 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.14). When time was factored into the model, the odds of successful placement of the King LTS-D were higher compared with DL (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.34-2.42) and lower for GVL (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80) and AirTraq (HR, 0.228; 95% CI, 0.16-0.325). Providers ranked the CMAC first in terms of performance and preference for use in their practice setting.

      Conclusion

      Overall success rates for DL, King-LTS-D, and both video laryngoscope systems were not different. When time was factored into the model, the King LTS-D was more likely to be placed successfully.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The American Journal of Emergency Medicine
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Nasim S.
        • Maharaj C.H.
        • Malik M.A.
        • O'Donnell J.
        • Higgins B.D.
        • Laffey J.G.
        Comparison of the Glidescope and Pentax AWS laryngoscopes to Macintosh laryngoscope for use by advanced paramedics in easy and simulated difficult intubation.
        BMC Emerg Med. 2009; 17: 9
        • Piepho T.
        • Weinert K.
        • Heid F.M.
        • Werner C.
        • Noppens R.R.
        Comparison of the McGrath Series 5 and Glidescope Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics.
        Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2011; 19: 4
        • Boedeker B.H.
        • Berg B.W.
        • Bernhagen M.A.
        • Murray W.B.
        Endotracheal intubation comparing a prototype Storz CMAC and a Glidescope video laryngoscope in a medical transport helicopter—a pilot study.
        Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009; 142: 37-39
        • Boedeker B.H.
        • Berg B.W.
        • Bernhagen M.A.
        • Murray W.B.
        Endotracheal intubation in a medical transport helicopter—comparing direct laryngoscopy with the prototype Storz CMAC video laryngoscope in a simulated difficult intubation position.
        Stud Health Technol Inform. 2009; 142: 40-42
        • Kim Y.M.
        • Kang H.G.
        • Kim J.H.
        • Chung H.S.
        • Yim H.W.
        • Jeong S.H.
        Direct versus video larygoscopic intubation by novice prehospital intubators with and without chest compression: a pilot manikin study.
        Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011; 15: 98-103
        • Cinar O.
        • Cevik E.
        • Yildirim A.O.
        • Yasar M.
        • Kilic E.
        • Comert B.
        Comparison of glidescope video laryngoscope and intubating laryngeal mask airway with direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation.
        Eur J Emerg Med. 2011; 18: 117-120
        • Aziz M.
        • Dillman D.
        • Kirsch J.R.
        • Brambrink A.
        Video laryngoscopy with the Macintosh video laryngoscope in simulated prehospital scenarios by paramedic students.
        Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009; 13: 251-255
        • Frascone R.J.
        • Russi C.
        • Lick C.
        • Conterato M.
        • et al.
        Comparison of prehospital insertion success rates and time to insertion between standard endotracheal intubation and a supraglottic airway.
        Resuscitation. 2011; 82: 1529-1536
        • Guyette F.X.
        • Greenwood M.J.
        • Neubecker D.
        • Roth R.
        • Wang H.E.
        Alternate airways in the prehospital setting (Resource Document to NAEMSP Position Statement).
        Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007; 11: 56-61
        • Burton J.H.
        Out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation: half empty or half full?.
        Ann Emerg Med. 2006; 47: 542-544
        • Arslan Hanif M.
        • Kaji A.H.
        • Niemann J.T.
        Advanced airway management does not improve outcome of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.
        Acad Emerg Med. 2010; 17: 926-931