23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of Preloaded Bougie versus Standard Bougie Technique for Endotracheal Intubation in a Cadaveric Model

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          We compared intubating with a preloaded bougie (PB) against standard bougie technique in terms of success rates, time to successful intubation and provider preference on a cadaveric airway model.

          Methods

          In this prospective, crossover study, healthcare providers intubated a cadaver using the PB technique and the standard bougie technique. Participants were randomly assigned to start with either technique. Following standardized training and practice, procedural success and time for each technique was recorded for each participant. Subsequently, participants were asked to rate their perceived ease of intubation on a visual analogue scale of 1 to 10 (1=difficult and 10=easy) and to select which technique they preferred.

          Results

          47 participants with variable experience intubating were enrolled at an emergency medicine intern airway course. The success rate of all groups for both techniques was equal (95.7%). The range of times to completion for the standard bougie technique was 16.0–70.2 seconds, with a mean time of 29.7 seconds. The range of times to completion for the PB technique was 15.7–110.9 seconds, with a mean time of 29.4 seconds. There was a non-significant difference of 0.3 seconds (95% confidence interval −2.8 to 3.4 seconds) between the two techniques. Participants rated the relative ease of intubation as 7.3/10 for the standard technique and 7.6/10 for the preloaded technique (p=0.53, 95% confidence interval of the difference −0.97 to 0.50). Thirty of 47 participants subjectively preferred the PB technique (p=0.039).

          Conclusion

          There was no significant difference in success or time to intubation between standard bougie and PB techniques. The majority of participants in this study preferred the PB technique. Until a clear and clinically significant difference is found between these techniques, emergency airway operators should feel confident in using the technique with which they are most comfortable.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Comparison of four manikins and fresh frozen cadaver models for direct laryngoscopic orotracheal intubation training.

          To compare the acceptability and preference between manikin models and fresh frozen cadaver (FFC) for direct laryngoscopic orotracheal intubation training. In this prospective crossover trial, participants in the airway workshop performed direct laryngoscopic orotracheal intubation on four airway training manikins: Airway Management Trainer (Ambu, St Ives, UK), Airway Trainer (Laerdal, Medical, Stavanger, Norway), Airsim (Trucorp, Belfast, Northern Ireland) and "Bill 1" (VBM, Sulz, Germany), and FFC. Participants were asked to access the following: reality of jaw mobility, difficulty with mouth opening, reality of neck flexibility, difficulty with intubation, overall model reality and model preference for each model using a visual analogue scale (VAS) of 0-10 cm. The VAS scores for each model were compared. Fifty-six participants were included in the study. The FFC had a highest VAS score for reality of jaw mobility, overall reality and preference of model. Trucorp manikin and Laerdal manikin followed cadaver. There were no significant statistical differences between Trucorp manikin and Laerdal manikin. In difficulty with mouth opening and difficulty with intubation, Trucorp manikin had the lowest VAS score. The FFC is a more realistic and preferred model for direct laryngoscopic orotracheal intubation training. Trucorp and Laerdal manikin can be used as alternative models.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Use of gum elastic bougie for prehospital difficult intubation.

            The objective of this study was to assess effectiveness of gum elastic bougie (GEB) in case of difficult intubation occurring in the prehospital settings. After manikin training to GEB handling, physicians were recommended to use GEB as first alternative technique in case of difficult intubation. Intubating conditions and details of patients requiring GEB-assisted laryngoscopy were recorded over 30 months. Among the 1442 extrahospital intubations performed, 41 patients (3%) required GEB. Gum elastic bougie allowed successful intubation in 33 cases (78%) and 8 patients sustained a second alternative technique. One patient was never intubated, another 1 required rescue cricothyroidotomy. Twenty-four (60%) GEB patients had associated factors for difficult intubation such as reduced or limited cervical spine mobility, morbid obesity, cervicofacial trauma, and ears, nose, and throat neoplasia. The success rate of GEB was 75% and 94%, respectively, depending on whether associated factors for difficult intubation are present or not. No adverse events associated to GEB use were noted.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Comparison of bougie-assisted intubation with traditional endotracheal intubation in a simulated difficult airway.

              To compare the success and ease of bougie-assisted intubation (BAI) with those of traditional endotracheal intubation (ETI) in a simulated difficult airway (20.4 seconds for BAI vs. 16.7 seconds for ETI, p = 0.102). This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blind study comparing BAI with ETI in a simulated difficult airway. The 35 participants included paramedics, flight nurses, and emergency medicine resident physicians. Participants were already experienced in ETI and received a brief demonstration of BAI. A simulated difficult airway was created using a Laerdal adult intubation manikin. Cervical motion was mechanically limited to provide a grade III Cormack and Lehane glottic view. Participants performed ETI and BAI in randomized order. Successful placement in the trachea and time to successful placement were recorded for both techniques by each participant. After intubating the manikin with both techniques, each participant was asked to complete a Likert-style survey assessing ease of each technique. Of the 35 participants, 27 were successful with both techniques and two failed with both techniques. The remaining six participants all failed at ETI but were able to intubate using BAI. There was significantly greater success in intubating the simulated difficult airway with BAI than with ETI (94% vs. 77%, p = 0.0313). The order of techniques attempted did not influence this conclusion. There was no difference in average time to successful intubation (20.4 seconds for BAI vs. 16.7 seconds for ETI, p = 0.102). Thirty-two (91.4%) of the participants completed the survey regarding ease of performing each technique. Forty-one percent rated the ease of intubation as the same for the two methods, 50% rated BAI as easier, and 9% rated ETI as easier (p = 0.0006). In a simulated difficult airway, BAI has a higher success rate than traditional ETI without increasing the time to successful intubation. Intubators perceive BAI as being easier to perform than traditional ETI in this simulated difficult airway scenario.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                West J Emerg Med
                West J Emerg Med
                WestJEM
                Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
                Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine
                1936-900X
                1936-9018
                July 2015
                23 June 2015
                : 16
                : 4
                : 588-593
                Affiliations
                Madigan Army Medical Center, Department of Emergency Medicine, Dupont, Washington
                Author notes
                Address for Correspondence: Jay B. Baker, MD, Madigan Army Medical Center, 9040 Fitzsimmons Drive JBLM, WA 98431. Email: jay.b.baker@ 123456gmail.com .
                Article
                wjem-16-588
                10.5811/westjem.2015.4.22857
                4530924
                26265978
                3d7faccd-3510-4464-9ae1-bccba36f5900
                Copyright © 2015 the authors.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-Commercial Attribution License, which permits its use in any digital medium, provided the original work is properly cited and not altered. For details, please refer to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/.Authors grant Western Journal of Emergency Medicine a nonexclusive license to publish the manuscript.

                History
                : 12 June 2014
                : 27 March 2015
                : 27 April 2015
                Categories
                Treatment Protocol Assessment
                Original Research

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                Emergency medicine & Trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article