A Comparison of Paramedic First Pass Endotracheal Intubation Success Rate of the VividTrac VT-A 100, GlideScope Ranger, and Direct Laryngoscopy Under Simulated Prehospital Cervical Spinal Immobilization Conditions in a Cadaveric Model

Abstract Objective The primary goal of this study was to compare paramedic first pass success rate between two different video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy (DL) under simulated prehospital conditions in a cadaveric model. Methods This was a non-randomized, group-controlled trial in which five non-embalmed, non-frozen cadavers were intubated under prehospital spinal immobilization conditions using DL and with both the GlideScope Ranger (GL; Verathon Inc, Bothell, Washington USA) and the VividTrac VT-A100 (VT; Vivid Medical, Palo Alto, California USA). Participants had to intubate each cadaver with each of the three devices (DL, GL, or VT) in a randomly assigned order. Paramedics were given 31 seconds for an intubation attempt and a maximum of three attempts per device to successfully intubate each cadaver. Confirmation of successful endotracheal intubation (ETI) was confirmed by one of the six on-site physicians. Results Successful ETI within three attempts across all devices occurred 99.5% of the time overall and individually 98.5% of the time for VT, 100.0% of the time for GL, and 100.0% of the time for DL. First pass success overall was 64.4%. Individually, first pass success was 60.0% for VT, 68.8% for GL, and 64.5% for DL. A chi-square test revealed no statistically significant difference amongst the three devices for first pass success rates (P=.583). Average time to successful intubation was 42.2 seconds for VT, 38.0 seconds for GL, and 33.7 for seconds for DL. The average number of intubation attempts for each device were as follows: 1.48 for VT, 1.40 for GL, and 1.42 for DL. Conclusion The was no statistically significant difference in first pass or overall successful ETI rates between DL and video laryngoscopy (VL) with either the GL or VT (adult). HodnickR, ZitekT, GalsterK, JohnsonS, BledsoeB, EbbsD. A comparison of paramedic first pass endotracheal intubation success rate of the VividTrac VT-A 100, GlideScope Ranger, and direct laryngoscopy under simulated prehospital cervical spinal immobilization conditions in a cadaveric model. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(6):621–624.

[1]  D. Timler,et al.  The comparison of the technical parameters in endotracheal intubation devices: the Cmac, the Vividtrac, the McGrath Mac and the Kingvision , 2015, Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing.

[2]  Jeffrey L. Jarvis,et al.  EMS Intubation Improves with King Vision Video Laryngoscopy , 2015, Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors.

[3]  S. Wewerka,et al.  Comparison of Success Rates between Two Video Laryngoscope Systems Used in a Prehospital Clinical Trial , 2014, Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors.

[4]  T. Scalea,et al.  Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: A randomized controlled trial , 2013, The journal of trauma and acute care surgery.

[5]  J. Sakles,et al.  A comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department. , 2012, Annals of emergency medicine.

[6]  J. Sakles,et al.  Difficult airway management in the emergency department: GlideScope videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy. , 2012, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[7]  J. Sakles,et al.  Tracheal intubation in the emergency department: a comparison of GlideScope® video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy in 822 intubations. , 2012, The Journal of emergency medicine.

[8]  Chien‐Chih Chen,et al.  Comparison of video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials , 2011, European journal of anaesthesiology.

[9]  M. Wayne,et al.  Comparison of Traditional versus Video Laryngoscopy in Out-of-Hospital Tracheal Intubation , 2010, Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors.

[10]  Henry E. Wang,et al.  Out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation: where are we? , 2006, Annals of emergency medicine.

[11]  Henry E. Wang,et al.  How many attempts are required to accomplish out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation? , 2006, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[12]  S. McCluskey,et al.  Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope®) in 728 patients , 2005, Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie.

[13]  D. Yealy,et al.  Defining the Learning Curve for Paramedic Student Endotracheal Intubation , 2005, Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors.