• Łukasz Szarpak, Andrzej Kurowski, Łukasz Czyżewski, Marcin Madziała, and Zenon Truszewski.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2015 Jul 1;33(7):872-5.

IntroductionThe aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of the TruView EVO2, TruView PCD, and Miller laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation with and without chest compressions (CCs) by paramedics in an infant manikin model.MethodsThis was an open, prospective, randomized, simulated trial. After a brief didactic session, 78 volunteer paramedics attempted to intubate a manikin using TruView EVO2, TruView PCD, and Miller laryngoscopes during resuscitation with and without CC scenarios. Primary end point was intubation success rate and secondary was time to intubation with each device. Glottic view using a Cormack-Lehane grade in using each device was also assessed.ResultsIn scenario with uninterrupted CCs, the median time to intubation using the TruView EVO2, TruView PCD, and Miller varied with the times being 25.3 seconds (interquartile range [IQR], 23-30.5 seconds) vs 20.2 seconds (IQR, 18-23 seconds) vs 24.4 seconds (IQR, 21-28 seconds), respectively. The overall success rate of intubation during CC for the devices were 94.9% vs 100% vs 92.1%. During intubation without CC, median time to intubation varied and amounted to 24.9 seconds (IQR, 21-29.6 seconds) for TruView EVO2, 18.3 seconds (IQR, 16-21.3 seconds) for TruView PCD, and 19.4 seconds (IQR, 17-23.3 seconds) for Miller laryngoscope. The overall success rate of intubation without CC for all devices was 100%.ConclusionsFor infant tracheal intubation with TruView PCD, when used by paramedics, the malleable TruView PCD showed shorter intubation time and higher overall success rate in a simulated CC scenario than TruView EVO2 or Miller laryngoscopes. Further clinical studies are necessary to confirm these initial positive findings.Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…