Abstract
BACKGROUND: Airway management in the emergency department is a critical intervention that requires both standard techniques and rescue techniques to ensure a high rate of success. Recently, video laryngoscope (VL) systems have become increasingly common in many large urban EDs, but these systems may exceed the budgets of smaller rural EDs and EMS services and the Airtraq optical laryngoscope (OL) may provide an effective, low-cost alternative. We hypothesized that laryngeal view and time to endothracheal tube placement for OL and VL intubations would not be significantly different.
METHODS: This was a prospective, crossover trial. Setting: University-based emergency medicine residency program procedure laboratory utilizing lightly embalmed cadavers. Subjects: PGY1-3 emergency medicine residents. The study subjects performed timed endotracheal intubations alternately using the OL and VL. The subjects then rated the Cormack-Lehane laryngeal view for each device. Statistical analysis: Mean time to intubation and the mean laryngeal view score were calculated with 95% confidence intervals and statistical signifi cance was determined by Student's t test.
RESULTS: Fourteen subjects completed the study. The average laryngeal view achieved with the OL vs. the VL was not significantly different, with Cormack-Lehane grade of 1.14 vs. 1.07, respectively. Time to endotracheal intubation, however, was significantly different (P<0.001) with the average time to intubation for the OL 25.49 seconds ( 95% CI: 17.95-33.03) and the VL 13.41 seconds (10.27-16.55).
CONCLUSION: The Airtraq OL and the Storz VL yielded similar laryngeal views in the lightly embalmed cadaver model. Time to endotracheal tube placement, however, was less for the VL.