Endotracheal Intubation
Conditions
Brief summary
We therefore designed this randomized crossover study to compare C-MAC with Macintosh laryngoscope in emergency intubation performed by paramedics according to three different intubator positions.
Interventions
DEVICEC-MAC laryngoscope
Intubation performed using C-MAC laryngoscope
DEVICEMacintosh laryngoscope
Intubation performed using laryngoscope with Macintosh blade
Sponsors
Medical University of Warsaw
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 65 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* give voluntary consent to participate in the study * maximum 1 year of work experience in medicine * minimum 50 clinical intubations * paramedics
Exclusion criteria
* not meet the above criteria * wrist or low back diseases
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame |
|---|---|
| Time required for successful intubation | 1 day |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| success rate of intubation attempt | 1 day | success rate of first, second and third intubation attempt |
| cumulative success ratios related to time | 1 day | cumulative success ratio was counted as percentage of successful intubations in time intervals in all scenarios |
| Ease of intubation | 1 day | To access subjective opinion about the difficulty of each intubation method, participants were asked to rate it on a visual analog scale (VAS) with a score from 1 (extremely easy) to 10 (extremely difficult). |
| Cormack&Lehane grade | 1 day | glottic view during intubation rate using Cormack&Lehane grade |
| Dental Compression | 1 day | the severity of the potential dental trauma was calculated based on previously described modified grading scale (Svoldelli, 2009) |
Countries
Poland
Outcome results
None listed