ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Traditional Bougie Versus Kiwi-D Grip Bougie Technique During Mechanical Chest Compressions: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Trial.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInvestigators have reported bougie use improves first-pass intubation success rates when compared to the endotracheal (ET) tube/stylet technique. We aimed to assess the difference in time to intubation and operator confidence between the Kiwi-D grip bougie and traditional bougie technique during simulated mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (mCPR).
methodsThis study was a prospective, randomized comparative study at a simulation center. Consenting emergency physicians were surveyed about intubation experience, and provided structured practice for techniques. Subjects performed direct laryngoscopy (DL) using a Mac 4 blade (Karl Storz SE & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany) on an adult manikin with a moderately difficult airway, during simulated mCPR (LUCAS 3.0, Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) at 100 compressions/min. Each subject was intubated using Kiwi-D and traditional bougie techniques, respectively, in a randomized order. A study author measured intubation time (blade pick up until cuff inflation) and assessed intubation success. Subjects rated intubation success confidence on a five-point scale and provided Cormack/Lehane grade. Categorical data was analyzed by chi-square and continuous data by t-tests for bivariate analyses. Multivariate linear regression was performed for intubation time. Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the ordinal categorical variables.
resultsThere were 31 subjects; 87% with one to five years of experience, 52% preferred DL during CPR, 71% preferred the traditional no-preload bougie technique, and 48% had utilized a bougie >10 times. Subjects had first-pass intubation success for all but one attempt with both modalities (NS). For Kiwi-D versus traditional bougie, 48% of subjects rated a higher level of confidence for successful intubation (p=0.01), and 29% (p=0.1) reported improved glottic view. Mean time to intubation was similar for Kiwi-D versus traditional (20.6+/-9 versus 25.3+/-17s; p=0.06). The following subject characteristics were not associated with improved intubation time for Kiwi-D: 6+ years of experience (p=0.6), >10 prior intubations with a bougie (p=0.6), preloading bougie preference (p=0.4), and DL preference (p=0.4). Multivariate linear regression did not identify subject variables that were significantly associated with Kiwi-D use for improved intubation time with Kiwi-D.
conclusionSubjects in our study group did not have significant differences in time to intubation using Kiwi-D versus traditional bougie during simulated mCPR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.