dc.creator | Pantazopoulos I., Kolonia K., Laou E., Mermiri M., Tsolaki V., Koutsovasilis A., Zakynthinos G., Gourgoulianis K., Arnaoutoglou E., Chalkias A. | en |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-01-31T09:41:50Z | |
dc.date.available | 2023-01-31T09:41:50Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
dc.identifier | 10.1016/j.jemermed.2021.01.001 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 07364679 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11615/77509 | |
dc.description.abstract | Background: The use of video laryngoscopes by novice physicians may improve first-pass success rates compared with direct laryngoscopy. Objective: The aim of the present study was to assess whether time to intubation, number of laryngoscopy attempts, and first-pass success rate during laryngoscopy with the video laryngoscope or conventional Macintosh laryngoscope are affected by personal protective equipment (PPE) donning. Methods: Seventy inexperienced physicians were randomly assigned to video laryngoscope or Macintosh groups and were instructed to perform intubation with both devices on a manikin, using PPE or a standard uniform. The primary outcomes were insertion time, number of laryngoscopy attempts, and first-pass success rates for each device with or without donning PPE. Results: In the Macintosh group, significantly less time was needed for the first successful intubation without PPE vs. with PPE (12.17 ± 3.69 s vs. 24.07 ± 5.09 s, respectively; p < 0.0001). On the other hand, such difference was not observed in the video laryngoscope group (14.99 ± 3.01 s vs. 14.01 ± 3.35 s, respectively; p = 0.07). With PPE, the first-pass success rate was significantly higher in the video laryngoscope group [41 (58.6%) vs. 66 (94.3%), p < 0.001]. The use of the video laryngoscope resulted in a significant decrease in insertion time compared with the Macintosh blade (14.01 ± 3.35 s vs. 24.07 ± 5.09 s, respectively; p < 0.0001). Conclusion: First-pass success and insertion time with the video laryngoscope were not affected by PPE donning. However, both were negatively affected with the Macintosh laryngoscope. © 2021 Elsevier Inc. | en |
dc.language.iso | en | en |
dc.source | Journal of Emergency Medicine | en |
dc.source.uri | https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85100637434&doi=10.1016%2fj.jemermed.2021.01.001&partnerID=40&md5=3b22e6708c1c3bd6aeeb6780a84df97f | |
dc.subject | adult | en |
dc.subject | Article | en |
dc.subject | comparative study | en |
dc.subject | controlled study | en |
dc.subject | crossover procedure | en |
dc.subject | endotracheal intubation | en |
dc.subject | female | en |
dc.subject | human | en |
dc.subject | male | en |
dc.subject | outcome assessment | en |
dc.subject | pandemic | en |
dc.subject | prospective study | en |
dc.subject | randomized controlled trial | en |
dc.subject | self concept | en |
dc.subject | videolaryngoscopy | en |
dc.subject | endotracheal intubation | en |
dc.subject | equipment design | en |
dc.subject | laryngoscope | en |
dc.subject | laryngoscopy | en |
dc.subject | manikin | en |
dc.subject | physician | en |
dc.subject | protective equipment | en |
dc.subject | videorecording | en |
dc.subject | Equipment Design | en |
dc.subject | Humans | en |
dc.subject | Intubation, Intratracheal | en |
dc.subject | Laryngoscopes | en |
dc.subject | Laryngoscopy | en |
dc.subject | Manikins | en |
dc.subject | Personal Protective Equipment | en |
dc.subject | Physicians | en |
dc.subject | Video Recording | en |
dc.subject | Elsevier Inc. | en |
dc.title | Video Laryngoscopy Improves Intubation Times With Level C Personal Protective Equipment in Novice Physicians: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Study | en |
dc.type | journalArticle | en |