Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30200089›Full record

Trial reportMedicine2018

Comparison of the UEScope videolaryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope during simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation: A randomized, cross-over, multi-center manikin study.

Lukasz Szarpak, Agnieszka Madziala, Michael Czekajlo, Jacek Smereka, Alexander Kaserer, Marek Dabrowski, Marcin Madziala, Ruslan Yakubtsevich, Jerzy Robert Ladny, Kurt Ruetzler

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.

Lukasz SzarpakLazarski University Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland Department of Surgery, Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center, Richmond, VA Department of Emergency Medical Service, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw, Poland Institute of Anesthesiology, University and University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Department of Medical Rescue, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Grodno State Medical University, Grodno, Belarus Department of Emergency Medicine and Disaster, Medical University Bialystok, Bialystok, Poland Departments of Outcomes Research and General Anesthesia, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH.
Agnieszka Madziala
Michael Czekajlo
Jacek Smereka
Alexander Kaserer
Marek Dabrowski
Marcin Madziala
Ruslan Yakubtsevich
Jerzy Robert Ladny
Kurt Ruetzler
Grodno State Medical University · BYHunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center · USMedical University of Białystok · PLMedical University of Warsaw · PLPoznan University of Medical Sciences · PLUczelnia Łazarskiego · PLUniversity Hospital of Zurich · CHWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndotracheal intubation (ETI) can be challenging, especially in life-threatening situations such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Videolaryngoscopes aim to ease ETI, but effort is still widely discussed. This study intended to investigate 2 different airway devices regarding the success rate of ETI during ongoing chest compressions.

methodsThis randomized, cross-over, multi-center manikin trial included 85 experienced paramedics actively working in the emergency medicine service. After a standardized training session, all paramedics underwent 3 airway scenarios using both, direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh blade and videolaryngoscope (the UEScope): normal airway without chest compressions, normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, and difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. The primary outcome was successful ETI, defined as successful placement of the endotracheal tube within the manikin's trachea. Secondary outcomes were number of intubation attempts, time to successful ETI, time to best glottis view, best percent of glottic opening, best glottic view score (Cormack and Lehane), occurrence of dental trauma, ease of use, and willing to reuse in real-life situations.

resultsThe UEScope provided a better glottis visualization, and higher first pass intubation success rate compared to direct laryngoscopy in all 3 scenarios. The overall intubation success was higher, and the intubation time was shorter with the UEScope in scenario B and scenario C, but was comparable in scenario A. Dental compression occurred less often using the UEScope and paramedics rated intubation using the UEScope easier compared to direct laryngoscopy in all 3 airway scenarios.

conclusionIn simulated CPR scenarios, intubation with the UEScope resulted in a better glottis visualization, a higher intubation success, and a shorter intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). Moreover, in situations where the airway is difficult for ETI especially by the paramedic, the UEScope would be a better choice than the MAC. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in real-life patients.

Indexed as

LaryngoscopesAdultAllied Health PersonnelCardiopulmonary ResuscitationCross-Over StudiesFemaleGlottisHumansLaryngoscopyMaleManikinsTime FactorsVideo Recording

Identifiers

PMID30200089
PMCPMC6133438
OpenAlexW2891759691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.