• Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez, Jose Moure-González, Silvia Rodríguez-Blanco, Ignacio Oulego-Erroz, Paula Rodríguez-Rivas, and Julio Cortiñas-Díaz.
• Pediatric Emergency and Critical Care Division, Pediatric Area, Hospital Clinico Universitario de Santiago de Compostela, Galicia's Public Health System (SERGAS), A Choupana, s/n, Santiago de Compostela, Spain, Antonio.Rodriguez.Nunez@sergas.es.
• Eur. J. Pediatr. 2014 Oct 1;173(10):1387-90.

UnlabelledOur objective was to test the ability of pediatric residents to intubate the trachea of infant and child manikins during continuous chest compressions (CC) by means of indirect videolaryngoscopy with Glidescope® versus standard direct laryngoscopy. A randomized crossover simulation trial was designed. Twenty-three residents trained to intubate child and infant manikins were eligible for the study. They were asked to perform tracheal intubation in manikins assisted by both standard laryngoscopy and Glidescope® while a colleague delivered uninterrupted chest compressions. In the infant cardiac arrest scenario, the median (IQR) total time for intubation was significantly shorter with the Miller laryngoscope [28.2 s (20.4-34.4)] than with Glidescope® [38.0 s (25.3-50.5)] (p = 0.021). The number of participants who needed more than 30 s to intubate the manikin was also significantly higher with Glidescope® (n = 13) than with the Miller laryngoscope (n = 7, p = 0.01). In the child scenario, the total time for intubation and number of intubation failures were similar with Macintosh and Glidescope® laryngoscopes. The participants' subjective difficulty of the procedure was similar for direct and videolaryngoscopy.ConclusionIn simulated infant and child cardiac arrest scenarios, pediatric residents are able to intubate the trachea during CC. The videolaryngoscope Glidescope® does not improve performance in this setting.

27 keywords...

hide…