A comparison of tracheal intubation using intubrite laryngoscope and conventional MAC laryngoscope: An open, prospective, crossover manikin study.

BACKGROUND: New devices are more available in the pre-hospital environment operational theaters and emergency departments. One is an intubrite laryngoscope (INT) with Dual LED lighting that combines ultraviolet and white LED. The study aimed to compare the efficacy of endotracheal intubation using INT and conventional laryngoscope performed by inexperienced paramedics (paramedics students) and paramedics with experience in advanced airways management in full and limited accessibility settings. METHODS: It was an open, prospective, crossover manikin study. Sixty paramedics and paramedic students were recruited. Participants were divided into 2 equal groups depending on their experience (n = 30). Experienced participants were further randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 15). Inexperienced participants were also randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 15). The criterion of inexperience was 5 or fewer intubation by any laryngoscope. Inexperience participants were asked to perform tracheal intubation in standard pre-hospital settings (without limited access to manikin) (scenario A) and difficult pre-hospital settings (limited access to manikin - narrow space between benches) (scenario B). Experience participants were asked to intubate manikin in difficult pre-hospital settings. RESULTS: In the normal pre-hospital environment, the success rate after the first attempt was 56,7% for conventional laryngoscope and 66,7% for intubrite. However, the overall effectiveness of tracheal intubation using both laryngoscopes in 3 attempts was 90% for both devices. The successful rate of first attempt intubation in a difficult environment by inexperienced was 73,3% for INT and 50% for conventional laryngoscope. Overall effectiveness was 83,3% and 86,7% respectively. The successful rate of first attempt intubation in the experienced group was 86,7% with INT compared to 60% with a conventional laryngoscope in difficult settings. Overall effectiveness was 96,7% for both devices. CONCLUSION: Intubrite provided better working conditions and make up for deficiencies in successful tracheal intubation by inexperienced participants in a normal and difficult environment. Tracheal intubation with intubrite was more effective in the experienced group. Tracheal intubation effectiveness with intubrite was also higher in the experienced group.

A pilot, prospective trial of IntuBrite® versus Macintosh direct laryngoscopy for paramedic endotracheal intubation in out of hospital cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Intubation in the case of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is one of the most difficult procedures for Emergency Medical Services (EMS). The use of a laryngoscope with a dual light source is an interesting alternative to classic laryngoscopes. However, there are as yet no prospective data concerning the use of double light direct laryngoscopy (DL) by paramedics in traditional ground ambulance agencies in OHCA. METHODS: We performed a non-blinded trial in a single EMS in Poland within ambulances crews, comparing time and first pass success (FPS) for endotracheal intubation (ETI) in DL using the IntuBrite® (INT) and Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We collected both patient and provider demographic information along with intubation details. The time and success rates were compared using an intention-to-treat analysis. RESULTS: Over a period of 40 months, a total of 86 intubations were performed using 42 INT and 44 MCL based on an intention-to-treat analysis. The FPS time of the ETI attempt (13.49 vs. 15.55 s) using an INT which was shorter than MCL was used (p < 0.05). First attempt success (34/42, 80.9% vs. 29/44, 64.4%) was comparable for INT and MCL with no statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: We found a statistically significant difference in intubation attempt time when the INT laryngoscope was used. Intubation first attempt success rates with INT and MCL were comparable with no statistical significance during CPR performed by paramedics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial was registered in Clinical Trials: NCT05607836 (10/28/2022).

chronic kidney disease.

In a traditional epiglottis biopsy surgery, the operator performs the direct laryngoscopy to visualise an operating field. However, in patients with tumour-altered epiglottis, this procedure can be unsuccessful, because of difficult laryngeal exposure (DLE). This term refers to an insufficient visualisation of larynx, according to anatomical and pathological lesions. A CASE REPORT: The aim of paper was to present a video laryngoscopy performed for surgical purpose in patient with tumour-altered epiglottis. Woman 52 year old was admitted to hospital for planned surgical epiglottis biopsy under general anesthesia. We utilised McGrath video laryngoscope to provide a successful larynx visualisation during an epiglottic tumour biopsy procedure, when a rigid diagnostic laryngoscope failed. McGrath appeared to provide an excellent view of the larynx, which enable the operator to perform the biopsy of the tumour. The operation proceeded without any complications. CONCLUSIONS: In case of shared airway procedure, such as epiglottis biopsy examination, video laryngoscopy appeared to be an effective method to expose the entrance to larynx and enable the surgical manipulation at the same time.