• Garrett S Pacheco, Asad E Patanwala, Jenny S Mendelson, and John C Sakles.
• From the Departments of Emergency Medicine and Pediatrics, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Banner University Medical Center Tucson, Tucson, AZ.
• Pediatr Emerg Care. 2021 Dec 1; 37 (12): e1098e1103e1098-e1103.

ObjectiveThere is little literature describing the performance of video laryngoscopes for the intubation of pediatric patients in the emergency department (ED). The purpose of this study is to report our experience with direct laryngoscopy (DL), the C-MAC (CMAC), and the GlideScope (GVL) over a 10-year period in an urban academic pediatric ED.MethodsThis was an analysis of pediatric intubations prospectively recorded into a Continuous Quality Improvement database in an academic pediatric ED over a 10-year period. Between July 1, 2007, and June 30, 2017, emergency physicians recorded all consecutive intubations performed in the pediatric ED. The database included patient demographics and detailed information on each intubation such as age of the patient, reason for intubation, device(s) used, method of intubation, difficult airway characteristics, adverse events, number of intubation attempts, and outcome of each attempt. All patients younger than 18 years who underwent intubation by an emergency medicine resident using a DL or videolaryngoscope (CMAC or GVL) were included in the study. The primary outcome measure was first-pass success without adverse events (FPS-AE), which was defined as successful tracheal intubation on a single laryngoscope insertion without the occurrence of any adverse events during the peri-intubation period. A multivariate regression analysis was performed to control for potential confounders and included difficult airway characteristic, operator level of training, method of intubation, and patient age.ResultsDuring the study period, 530 intubations were performed in pediatric patients. Of these, 493 intubations met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed (218 DL, 187 CMAC, 88 GVL). The FPS-AE with each device is as follows: DL, 54.1% (n = 118/218); CMAC, 64.0% (n = 119/187); and GVL, 52.3% (n = 46/88). In the logistic regression analysis, compared with DL, the CMAC was associated with a higher FPS-AE (odds ratio, 1.6 [95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.45]), whereas the GVL was not associated with an increased FPS-AE (odds ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.35-1.10]).ConclusionsIn this study of pediatric patients intubated in the ED, compared with DL, the CMAC was associated with an increased FPS-AE, but the GVL was not.Copyright © 2019 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.

9 keywords...

hide…