Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34809581›Full record

Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2021

Intubation using VieScope vs. Video laryngoscopy in full personal protective equipment - a randomized, controlled simulation trial.

Hannes Ecker, Simone Kolvenbach, Holger Herff, Wolfgang A Wetsch

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact of VieScope® on first-attempt success during simulated COVID-19 patients intubation: A randomized cross-over simulation trial.Ulusal travma ve acil cerrahi dergisi = Turkish journal of trauma & emergency surgery : TJTES · 2023
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Hannes EckerFaculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Simone KolvenbachFaculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Holger HerffFaculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany.
Wolfgang A WetschFaculty of Medicine, University of Cologne, Kerpener Str. 62, 50937, Cologne, Germany. wolfgang.wetsch@uk-koeln.de.
University Hospital Cologne · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVieScope is a new type of laryngoscope, with a straight, transparent and illuminated blade, allowing for direct line of sight towards the larynx. In addition, VieScope is disposed of after single patient use, which can avoid cross-contaminations of contagious material. This has gained importance especially when treating patients with highly contagious infectious diseases, such as during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. In this context, VieScope has not been evaluated yet in a clinical study. MATERIAL AND

methodsThis study compared intubation with VieScope to video-laryngoscopy (GlideScope) in normal and difficult airway in a standardized airway manikin in a randomized controlled simulation trial. Thirty-five medical specialists were asked to perform endotracheal intubation in full personal protective equipment (PPE). Primary endpoint was correct tube position. First-pass rate (i.e., success rate at the first attempt), time until intubation and time until first correct ventilation were registered as secondary endpoints.

resultsFor correct tracheal tube placement, there was no significant difference between VieScope and GlideScope in normal and difficult airway conditions. VieScope had over 91% fist-pass success rate in normal airway setting. VieScope had a comparable success rate to GlideScope in difficult airway, but had a significantly longer time until intubation and time until ventilation.

conclusionVieScope and GlideScope had high success rates in normal as well as in difficult airway. There was no unrecognized esophageal intubation in either group. Overall time for intubation was longer in the VieScope group, though in an acceptable range given in literature. Results from this simulation study suggest that VieScope may be an acceptable alternative for tracheal intubation in full PPE.

trial registrationThe study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Registration date: 09/11/2020; TrialID: DRKS00023406 ).

Indexed as

Personal Protective EquipmentAdultAirway ManagementDisposable EquipmentEquipment DesignFemaleHumansInfectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-ProfessionalIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyMaleManikinsMiddle AgedTime FactorsVideo RecordingAirway managementDifficult airwayEndotracheal intubationVideo-laryngoscopyVieScope

Identifiers

PMID34809581
PMCPMC8606276
OpenAlexW3215706850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.