Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:15:49.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Intubation Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use of Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy While Wearing HazMat PPE: A Preliminary High-fidelity Mannequin Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2015

Sara J. Aberle ,
Benjamin J. Sandefur ,
Kharmene L. Sunga ,
Ronna L. Campbell ,
Christine M. Lohse ,
Henrique Alecastro Puls ,
Sarah Laudon  and
Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer
Sara J. Aberle
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
Benjamin J. Sandefur
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
Kharmene L. Sunga
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
Ronna L. Campbell
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
Christine M. Lohse
Affiliation:
Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
Henrique Alecastro Puls
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
Sarah Laudon
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota USA
*
Correspondence: Matthew D. Sztajnkrycer, MD, PhD Department of Emergency Medicine Mayo Clinic GE-GR-G410 200 1st Street SW Rochester, Minnesota 55905 USA E-mail: sztajnkrycer.matthew@mayo.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Management of contaminated patients in the decontamination corridor requires the use of hazardous material (HazMat) personal protective equipment (PPE). Previous studies have demonstrated that HazMat PPE may increase the difficulty of airway management. This study compared the efficiency of video laryngoscopy (VL) with traditional direct laryngoscopy (DL) during endotracheal intubation (ETI) while wearing HazMat PPE.

Methods

Post-graduate year (PGY) 1-3 Emergency Medicine residents were randomized to VL or DL while wearing encapsulating PPE. Video laryngoscopy was performed using the GlideScope Cobalt AVL video laryngoscope. The primary outcome measure was time to successful ETI in a high-fidelity simulation mannequin. Three time points were utilized in the analysis: Time 0 (blade at lips), Time 1 (blade removed from lips after endotracheal tube placement), and Time 2 (bag valve mask [BVM] attached to endotracheal tube). Secondary outcome measures were perceived ease of use and feasibility of VL and DL ETI modalities.

Results

Twenty-one of 23 (91.3%) eligible residents participated. Mean time to ETI was 10.0 seconds (SD=5.3 seconds) in the DL group and 7.8 seconds (SD=3.0 seconds) in the VL group (P=.081). Mean times from blade insertion until BVM attachment were 17.4 seconds (SD=6.0 seconds) and 15.6 seconds (SD=4.6 seconds), respectively (P=.30). There were no unsuccessful intubation attempts. Seventeen out of 20 participants (85.0%) perceived VL to be easier to use when performing ETI in PPE. Twelve out of 20 participants (60%) perceived DL to be more feasible in an actual HazMat scenario.

Conclusion

The time to successful ETI was not significantly different between VL and DL. Video laryngoscopy had a greater perceived ease of use, but DL was perceived to be more feasible for use in actual HazMat situations. These findings suggest that both DL and VL are reasonable modalities for use in HazMat situations, and the choice of modality could be based on the clinical situation and provider experience.

AberleSJ , SandefurBJ , SungaKL , CampbellRL , LohseCM , Alecastro PulsH , LaudonS , SztajnkrycerMD . Intubation Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use of Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy While Wearing HazMat PPE: A Preliminary High-fidelity Mannequin Study. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2015;30(3):1–5.

Keywords

direct laryngoscopyhazardous materialspersonal protective equipmentvideo laryngoscopy
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 30 , Issue 3 , June 2015 , pp. 259 - 263
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Noll, GG, Hildebrand, MS. Hazardous Materials: Managing the Incident. 4th Edition. Burlington, Massachusetts USA: Jones and Bartlett Learning; 2014.Google Scholar
2. Kenar, L, Karayulanoglu, . Prehospital management and medical intervention after a chemical attack. Emerg Med J. 2004;21(1):84-88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Baker, DJ. Management of respiratory failure in toxic disasters. Resuscitation. 1999;42(2):125-131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Muskat, PC. Mass casualty chemical exposure and implications for respiratory failure. Respir Care. 2008;53(1):58-63.Google ScholarPubMed
5. Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, Ben-Abraham, R, Rudick, V, Varssano, D, Weinbroum, AA. Anti-chemical protective gear prolongs time to successful airway management. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(2):260-266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hendler, I, Nahtomi, O, Segal, E, Perel, A, Wiener, M, Meyerovitch, J. The effect of full protective gear on intubation performance by hospital medical personnel. Mil Med. 2000;165(4):272-274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Ben-Abraham, R, Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, Ezri, T, Weissenberg, M, Weinbroum, AA. Cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) placement is delayed by wearing anti-chemical protective gear. Emerg Med J. 2008;25(12):847-850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Castle, N, Pillay, Y, Spencer, N. Comparison of six different intubation aids for use while wearing CBRN-PPE: a manikin study. Resuscitation. 2011;82(12):1548-1552.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Griesdale, DEG, Liu, D, McKinney, J, Choi, PT. GlideScope video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anesth. 2012;59(1):41-52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Shin, DH, Choi, PC, Na, JU, Cho, JH, Han, SK. Utility of the Pentax-AWS in performing tracheal intubation while wearing chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear protective equipment: a randomized crossover trial using a mannequin. Emerg Med J. 2013;30(7):527-531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Burgess, JL, Kovalchick, DF, Harter, L, Kyes, KB, Lymp, JF, Brodkin, CA. Hazardous materials events: evaluation of transport to health care facility and evacuation decisions. Am J Emerg Med. 2001;19(2):99-105.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Cone, DC, Davidson, SJ. Hazmat preparedness: sufficient or so-so? [Abstract]. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1995;10(S3):S62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Okumura, T, Takasu, N, Ishimatsu, S, et al. Report on 640 victims of the Tokyo subway sarin attack. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28(2):129-135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Kirk, MA, Cisek, J, Rose, SR. Emergency department response to hazardous materials incidents. Emerg Med Clin North Am. 1994;12(2):461-481.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Horton, DK, Berkowitz, Z, Kaye, WE. Secondary contamination of ED personnel from hazardous materials events, 1995-2001. Am J Emerg Med. 2003;21(3):199-204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16. Horton, DK, Burgess, P, Rossiter, S, Kaye, WE. Secondary contamination of emergency department personnel from o-Chlorobenzylidene Malononitrile exposure, 2002. Ann Emerg Med. 2005;45(6):655-658.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Nozaki, H, Hori, S, Shinozawa, Y, et al. Secondary exposure of medical staff to sarin vapor in the emergency room. Intensive Care Med. 1995;21(12):1032-1035.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Burgess, JL. Hospital evacuations due to hazardous materials incidents. Emerg Med. 1999;17(1):50-52.Google ScholarPubMed
19. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Hazardous Waste Operations Emergency Response. Washington, DC USA: Occupational Safety and Health Administration; July 1, 2002. 29 CFR 1910.120.(c)(5).Google Scholar
20. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. Guide to Emergency Management Planning in Health Care. Joint Commission Resources, Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations: Oakbrook, Illinois USA; 2002.Google Scholar
21. Koenig, KL, Boatright, CJ, Hancock, JA, et al. Health care facility-based decontamination of victims exposed to chemical, biological, and radiological materials. Am J Emerg Med. 2008;26(1):71-80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Hick, JL, Hanfling, D, Burstein, JL, Markham, J, Macintyre, AG, Barbera, JA. Protective equipment for health care facility decontamination personnel: regulations, risks, and recommendations. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;42(3):370-380.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Castle, N, Owen, R, Hann, M, Clark, S, Reeves, D, Gurney, I. Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills. Resuscitation. 2009;80(11):1290-1295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. King, JM, Frelin, AJ. Impact of the chemical protective ensemble on the performance of basic medical tasks. Mil Med. 1984;149(9):496-501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Coates, MJ, Jundi, AS, James, MR. Chemical protective clothing: a study into the ability of staff to perform lifesaving procedures. J Accid Emerg Med. 2000;17(2):115-118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Berkenstadt, H, Arad, M, Nahtomi, O, et al. The effect of a chemical protective ensemble on intravenous line insertion by emergency medical technicians. Mil Med. 1999;164(10):737-739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, Friedman, A, Ben-Abraham, R, Rudick, V, Weinbroum, AA. Laryngeal mask airway insertion by anethetists and non-anesthetists wearing unconventional protective gear. Anesthesiology. 2004;100(2):267-273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Goldik, Z, Bornstein, J, Eden, A, Ben-Abraham, R. Airway management by physicians wearing anti-chemical warfare gear: comparison between laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal intubation. Europ J Anesthesiology. 2002;19(3):166-169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Ben-Abraham, R, Weinbroum, AA. Laryngeal mask airway control versus endotracheal intubation by medical personnel wearing protective gear. Am J Emerg Med. 2004;22(1):24-26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Wayne, MA, McDonnell, M. Comparison of traditional versus video laryngoscopy in out-of-hospital tracheal intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(2):278-282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Cooper, RM, Pacey, JA, Bishop, MJ, McClusky, SA. Early clinical experience with a new video laryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52(2):191-198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Su, YC, Chen, CC, Lee, YK, Lee, JY, Lin, KJ. Comparison of video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28(11):788-795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
33. Kim, YM, Kang, HG, Kim, JH, Chung, HS, Yim, HW, Jeong, SH. Direct versus video laryngoscopic intubation by novice prehospital intubators with and without chest compressions: a pilot manikin study. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011;15(1):98-103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Nakstad, AR, Sandberg, M. The GlideScope Ranger Video Laryngoscope can be useful in airway management of entrapped patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53(10):1257-1261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Nouruzi-Sedeh, P, Schumann, M, Groeben, H. Laryngoscopy via Macintosh blade versus GlideScope: success rate and time for endotracheal intubation in untrained medical personnel. Anesthesiology. 2009;110(1):32-37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
36. Brinker, A, Gray, SA, Schumacher, J. Influence of air-purifying respirators on the simulated first emergency response treatment of CBRN victims. Resuscitation. 2007;74(2):310-316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed