RESUMO
The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that the results obtained with three different types of video laryngoscopes (UESCOPE VL-400, I-View, Non-Channeled Aitraq) with and without an endotracheal stylet should be better than the results obtained with a Macintosh laryngoscope in a simulated out-of-hospital scenario by a person without clinical experience. Primary outcome measures were the time taken to successfully achieve tracheal intubation (TI). Secondary outcomes included the grade of glottic view (Cormack and Lehane grades 1-4), the incidence of successful TI, the number of audible dental clicks indicating potential dental damage, the level of effort required to perform TI, and the operator's comfort during the procedure. The time required to achieve tracheal intubation successfully was significantly longer with the Macintosh laryngoscope and Airtraq than with the other video laryngoscopes. The use of the stylet significantly reduced the time required for tracheal intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope (21.8 sec. vs. 24.0 sec., p = 0.026), UESCOPE VL 400 (18.1 sec. vs. 23.4 sec., p = 0.013), and Airtraq (22.7 sec. vs. 34.5 sec., p < 0.001). There were no significant differences in intubation time when using the I-View with or without stylets. No differences were observed in the Cormack-Lehane grading. The success rate of intubation was 100% for the Macintosh and I-View laryngoscopes used with or without stylets and for the UESCOPE VL 400 and Airtraq laryngoscopes used with stylets. Without stylets, the success rate of intubation was 96.6% for the UESCOPE VL 400 and 86.6% for the Airtraq. There were no significant differences in the risk of dental damage between the Macintosh, UESCOPE VL 400, I-View, and Airtraq laryngoscopes, regardless of the use of stylets (without and with stylets). The use of stylets significantly reduced dental damage only for the Airtraq laryngoscope: 8 (26.6%) vs. 2 (6.6%). Statistically significant differences in perceived exertion were observed between the mentioned laryngoscopes, both with and without stylets. However, there were no differences in the comfort of use between the laryngoscopes, regardless of the use of stylets (without and with stylets. The use of stylets led to better comfort in the case of the Macintosh (2.5 vs. 3, p = 0.043) and UESCOPE VL 400 (2 vs. 3, p = 0.008) laryngoscopes. In our study, the I-View and UESCOPE VL-400 video laryngoscopes provided better intubation results than the Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of time needed to intubate, glottis visibility, and reduction in dental damage. The use of the stylet did not significantly improve the intubation results compared to the results obtained in direct laryngoscopy. Due to the small study group and the manikin model, additional studies should be performed on a larger study group.
RESUMO
The aim of the study was to evaluate the laryngoscopes Macintosh, Miller, McCoy, Intubrite, VieScope and I-View in simulated out-of-hospital conditions when used by people without clinical experience, and to choose the one that, in the case of failure of the first intubation (FI), gives the highest probability of successful second (SI) or third (TI). For FI, the highest success rate (HSR) was observed for I-View and the lowest (LSR) for Macintosh (90% vs. 60%; p < 0.001); for SI, HSR was observed for I-View and LSR for Miller (95% vs. 66,7%; p < 0001); and for TI, HSR was observed for I-View and LSR for Miller, McCoy and VieScope (98.33% vs. 70%; p < 0.001). A significant shortening of intubation time between FI and TI was observed for Macintosh (38.95 (IQR: 30.1-47.025) vs. 32.4 (IQR: 29-39.175), p = 0.0132), McCoy (39.3 (IQR: 31.1-48.15) vs. 28.75 (IQR: 26.475-35.7), p < 0.001), Intubrite (26.4 (IQR: 21.4-32.3) vs. 20.7 (IQR: 18.3-24.45), p < 0.001), and I-View (21 (IQR: 17.375-25.1) vs. 18 (IQR: 15.95-20.5), p < 0.001). According to the respondents, the easiest laryngo- scopes to use were I-View and Intubrite, while the most difficult was Miller. The study shows that I-View and Intubrite are the most useful devices, combining high efficiency with a statistically significant reduction in time between successive attempts.