We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
The C-MAC® video laryngoscope is superior to the direct laryngoscope for the rescue of failed first-attempt intubations in the emergency department.
Journal of Emergency Medicine 2015 March
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (CMAC) to the direct laryngoscope (DL) when used to rescue a failed first attempt intubation in the emergency department (ED).
METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on all patients intubated in an academic ED center over a five-year period from February 1, 2009 to January 31, 2014 when both the CMAC and the DL were available. Following each intubation the operator completed a continuous quality improvement (CQI) form documenting patient, operator and intubation characteristics. All orotracheal intubations attempted by emergency physicians (EPs) on adult patients with a failed first intubation attempt, and in which the CMAC or the DL was used for the second attempt, were included. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the second attempt using either the CMAC or the DL. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders.
RESULTS: During the five-year study period, there were 460 adult orotracheal intubation attempts by EPs which were not successful on the first attempt. In 398 (86.5%) of these cases the same operator performed the second attempt. The CMAC was utilized for the second attempt in 141 cases and was successful in 116 (82.3%; 95% CI 75.0%-88.2%) and the DL was utilized in 94 cases and was successful in 58 (61.7%; 95% CI 51.1%-71.5%). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis the CMAC was associated with an increased odds (adjusted OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.9-6.7) of a second attempt success compared to the DL.
CONCLUSIONS: After a failed first intubation attempt in the ED, regardless of the initial device used, the CMAC was more successful than the DL when used for the second attempt. This suggests that the CMAC is the preferred rescue device after an initial intubation attempt in the ED fails.
METHODS: Data were prospectively collected on all patients intubated in an academic ED center over a five-year period from February 1, 2009 to January 31, 2014 when both the CMAC and the DL were available. Following each intubation the operator completed a continuous quality improvement (CQI) form documenting patient, operator and intubation characteristics. All orotracheal intubations attempted by emergency physicians (EPs) on adult patients with a failed first intubation attempt, and in which the CMAC or the DL was used for the second attempt, were included. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the second attempt using either the CMAC or the DL. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders.
RESULTS: During the five-year study period, there were 460 adult orotracheal intubation attempts by EPs which were not successful on the first attempt. In 398 (86.5%) of these cases the same operator performed the second attempt. The CMAC was utilized for the second attempt in 141 cases and was successful in 116 (82.3%; 95% CI 75.0%-88.2%) and the DL was utilized in 94 cases and was successful in 58 (61.7%; 95% CI 51.1%-71.5%). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis the CMAC was associated with an increased odds (adjusted OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.9-6.7) of a second attempt success compared to the DL.
CONCLUSIONS: After a failed first intubation attempt in the ED, regardless of the initial device used, the CMAC was more successful than the DL when used for the second attempt. This suggests that the CMAC is the preferred rescue device after an initial intubation attempt in the ED fails.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app