New Versus Old, The i-View Video Laryngoscope Versus the GlideScope: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND: A novel video laryngoscope device, the i-view, may extend intubation capability to the lowest echelons of deployed military medicine. The i-view is a one-time use, disposable laryngoscope. We compared time to completion of endotracheal intubation (ETI) between the i-view and GlideScope among military emergency medicine providers in a simulation setting. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. We randomized participants to i-view or GlideScope first before they performed 2 ETI-1 with each device. The primary outcome was time to completion of ETI. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, optimal glottic view, and end-user appraisal. We used a Laerdal Airway Management Trainer for all intubations. RESULTS: Thirty-three emergency medicine providers participated. ETI time was less with GlideScope than i-view (22.2 +/- 9.0 seconds versus 30.2 +/- 24.0 seconds; p=0.048). Optimal glottic views, using the Cormack-Lehan scale, also favored the GlideScope (2 [1,2] versus 2[2,2]; p=0.044). There was no difference in first-pass success rates (100% versus 100%). More participants preferred the GlideScope (24 versus 9; p=0.165); however, participants agreed that the i-view would be easier to use than the GlideScope in an austere environment (4[4,5]). CONCLUSIONS: We found the GlideScope outperformed the i-view with respect to procedural completion time. Participants preferred the GlideScope over i-view, but indicated the i-view would be easier to use than the GlideScope in an austere setting. Our findings suggest the i-view may be a suitable alternative to GlideScope for US military providers, especially for those in the prehospital setting.

Special Operations Medics Test the Novel iView Video Laryngoscope: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND: Airway compromise is the second leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield. Special operations medic comprise the majority of medics trained to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI), mostly by way of direct laryngoscopy (DL). The iView is a disposable, low-cost video laryngoscopy (VL) device, enabling its distribution to prehospital medical providers. We seek to compare time to intubation between DL and iView VL among special operations combat medics (SOCM). METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. We enrolled special operations medics assigned to Joint Base Lewis McChord, WA. We randomized subjects to first performing VL or DL. Subjects performed a total of 10 ETI, 5 by VL and 5 by DL, on adult airway manikins. The primary outcome was time (in seconds) for ETI completion. RESULTS: A total of 32 medics completed 160 with DL ETIs and 160 VL ETIs. A total of 10 of 32 (31.3%) medics reported no previous experience with VL devices. We found a significant difference in time to intubation between VL and DL (20.4 (95% CI 20.6 - 26.1) seconds versus 23.4 (95% CI 18.7 - 22.2) seconds; p = 0.03) in favor of VL. All VL attempts were successful while 96.9% of DL were successful (p = 0.10). With respect to end-user appraisal of devices, a significant number of medics preferred the iView VL over DL (23 versus 9; p is less than 0.00001). Additionally, medics considered iView VL easier to use (5 [5-6] versus 5 [4-5]; p=0.0004) and easier to learn, remember, and perform by combat medics (5 [5-5] versus 4 [4-5]; p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Special operations medics naïve to VL rapidly learned how to effectively utilize iView VL, as evidenced by a significant difference in time to intubation in favor of iView VL. Additionally, most medics favored iView VL and considered it easy to use, learn, and remember.

Effects of MOPP Gear on SAM Medical Junctional Tourniquet Application: A Prospective, Randomized Control Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death on the battlefield, and hemostasis is particularly challenging to achieve at junctional sites such as the axillary or inguinal regions. Mission-oriented protective posture (MOPP) gear, as worn most recently in Syria to guard against chemical weapons, can make the performance of technical skills more challenging still. The objective of this study was to evaluate how wearing MOPP gear affects the application time of the SAM Medical Junctional Tourniquet (SJT) by U.S. Army combat medics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomized control trial evaluating time for SJT application between participants wearing MOPP versus those not wearing MOPP. Secondary outcomes included SJT application success rate and participant appraisal of SJT application difficulty assessed with five-point Likert items, between groups. Participants placed SJTs on robotic simulation mannequins with a penetrating inguinal injury. RESULTS: In April 2019, we enrolled 49 combat medics. Most participants were male (77.5%), had a median age of 25 (interquartile range 23-28), and in the grade of E4 or less (63.3%). Mean SJT application times in seconds were higher among those wearing MOPP versus those who were not (223.1 versus 167.2; 95% confidence interval for difference in means 5.293, 106.374; P = 0.03). Participants wearing MOPP had a less successful application rate overall, but this difference was not statistically significant (64.3% versus 81.0%, P = 0.34). Compared to participants not wearing MOPP, those wearing MOPP agreed that SJT application was difficult (4 versus 3, P = 0.03), what they were wearing affected SJT application (4 versus 2, P = 0.01), and it was difficult to use their hands during SJT application (4 versus 1, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Wearing military MOPP gear significantly prolongs the amount of time required for combat medics to apply an SJT on a simulated casualty with a penetrating inguinal injury. This study highlights the importance of incorporating MOPP gear into medical training scenarios to improve skills competency while wearing these protective garments.