4.5 Article

Video laryngoscopy improves the first-attempt success in endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation among novice physicians

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 89, 期 -, 页码 188-194

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.12.010

关键词

Endotracheal intubation; Video laryngoscopy; Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; High frequency chest compression; Interruption

资金

  1. Konkuk University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To compare the first-attempt success in endotracheal intubation (ETI) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) using direct laryngoscopy (DL) and video laryngoscopy (VL) (GlideScope) among novice emergency physicians (EPs). Methods: This study is a historically controlled clinical design. From May 2011 to April 2013 out-ofhospital cardiac arrest patients were intubated during CPR by novice EPs. CPR data was automatically recorded by pre-installed video and subsequently analysed. The primary outcome was the success rate of the first-attempt at ETI. In addition, time to successful ETI from first-attempt (T-complete), duration of chest compression interruptions, and incidence of oesophageal intubation were compared. Results: Of 305 patients undergoing ETI, 83 were intubated by novice EPs. The success rate of first-attempt ETI in the VL group (n=49) was higher than that in the DL group (n=34, 91.8% vs. 55.9%; p < 0.001). The median T-complete was significantly shorter with VL than with DL (37 [29-55] vs. 62 [56-110] s; p < 0.001). Oesophageal intubation was observed only in the DL group (n=6, 17.6%). The median duration of chest compression interruptions was greater with DL (7 [3-6] s) than with VL (0 [0-0] s). Improvements in ETI during CPR were observed in the VL group after the first 3 months, but not the DL group during regular use for 1 year. Conclusions: For novice EPs, the VL could significantly improve the first-attempt success in ETI during CPR while the DL couldn't improve it. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据