• Takahiro Arima, Osamu Nagata, Takeshi Miura, Katsuki Ikeda, Tomoya Mizushima, Azusa Takahashi, and Koji Sakaida.
• Emergency Department, Funabashi Municipal Medical Center. Electronic address: arimataka64@gmail.com.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Jan 1;32(1):40-3.

Study ObjectiveThis study sought to determine and compare the utility of the Airway scope (AWS; Pentax Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope (MLS) for intubation in the prehospital setting.MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial in the prehospital setting, the primary outcome was time required for intubation, and the secondary outcomes were ultimate success, first attempt success, and difficulty of intubation. The intent-to-treat principle was used to analyze time to intubation. Ultimate success was defined as intubation completed within 600 s regardless of the device ultimately used.ResultsA total of 109 patients, primarily with cardiac arrest, were randomly assigned to the AWS or MLS arms. Median time (interquartile range) to intubation was 155 (71-216) s with the AWS versus 120 (60-170) s with the MLS (P = .095). Ultimate success rate was slightly lower with the AWS (96.4%) than with the MLS (100%) (P = .496), while the first attempt success rate was significantly lower (46% and 75%, respectively; P = .002). There was no significant difference in difficulty of intubation (P = .066). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that cervical immobilization and oral contamination, such as vomit, was associated with first attempt success (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.11 [0.01-0.87] and 0.43 [0.18-0.99], respectively).ConclusionDespite its many advantages seen in other settings, the AWS did not show superior efficacy to the MLS in relation to time required for intubation, ultimate or first attempt success rate, or difficulty level of intubation in the prehospital setting.© 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…