Use of the GlideScope Ranger Video Laryngoscope for Emergency Intubation in the Prehospital Setting: A Randomized Control Trial.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to assess whether the GlideScope Ranger video laryngoscope may be a reliable alternative to direct laryngoscopy in the prehospital setting. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, randomized, control trial with patient recruitment over 18 months. SETTING: Four study centers operating physician-staffed rescue helicopters or ground units in Austria and Norway. PATIENTS: Adult emergency patients requiring endotracheal intubation. INTERVENTIONS: Airway management strictly following a prehospital algorithm. First and second intubation attempt employing GlideScope or direct laryngoscopy as randomized; third attempt crossover. After three failed intubation attempts, immediate use of an extraglottic airway device. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 326 patients were enrolled. Success rate with the GlideScope (n = 168) versus direct laryngoscopy (n = 158) group was 61.9% (104/168) versus 96.2% (152/158), respectively (p < 0.001). The main reasons for failed GlideScope intubation were failure to advance the tube into the larynx or trachea (26/168 vs 0/158; p < 0.001) and/or impaired sight due to blood or fluids (21/168 vs 3/158; p < 0.001). When GlideScope intubation failed, direct laryngoscopy was successful in 61 of 64 patients (95.3%), whereas GlideScope enabled intubation in four of six cases (66.7%) where direct laryngoscopy failed (p = 0.055). In addition, GlideScope was prone to impaired visualization of the monitor because of ambient light (29/168; 17.3%). There was no correlation between success rates and body mass index, age, indication for airway management, or experience of the physicians, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Video laryngoscopy is an established tool in difficult airway management, but our results shed light on the specific problems in the emergency medical service setting. Prehospital use of the GlideScope was associated with some major problems, thus resulting in a lower intubation success rate when compared with direct laryngoscopy.

Use of the Airtraq laryngoscope for emergency intubation in the prehospital setting: a randomized control trial.

OBJECTIVES: The optical Airtraq laryngoscope (Prodol Meditec, Vizcaya, Spain) has been shown to have advantages when compared with direct laryngoscopy in difficult airway patients. Furthermore, it has been suggested that it is easy to use and handle even for inexperienced advanced life support providers. As such, we sought to assess whether the Airtraq may be a reliable alternative to conventional intubation when used in the prehospital setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Prospective, randomized control trial in emergency patients requiring endotracheal intubation provided by anesthesiologists or emergency physicians responding with an emergency medical service helicopter or ground unit associated with the Department of Anesthesiology, General Hospital, Wiener Neustadt, Austria. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: During the 18-month study period, 212 patients were enrolled. When the Airtraq was used as first-line airway device (n=106) vs. direct laryngoscopy (n=106), success rate was 47% vs. 99%, respectively (p<.001). Reasons for failed Airtraq intubation were related to the fiber-optic characteristic of this device (i.e., impaired sight due to blood and vomitus, n=11) or to assumed handling problems (i.e., cuff damage, tube misplacement, or inappropriate visualization of the glottis, n=24). In 54 of 56 patients where Airtraq intubation failed, direct laryngoscopy was successful on the first attempt; in the remaining two and in one additional case of failed direct laryngoscopy, the airway was finally secured employing the Fastrach laryngeal mask. There was no correlation between success rates and body mass index, age, indication for airway management, emergency medical service unit, or experience of the physicians. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, the use of the Airtraq laryngoscope as a primary airway device cannot be recommended in the prehospital setting without significant clinical experience obtained in the operation room. We conclude that the clinical learning process of the Airtraq laryngoscope is much longer than reported in the anesthesia literature.