Title |
The C-MAC videolaryngoscope compared with conventional laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation at the emergency department: study protocol
|
---|---|
Published in |
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, April 2015
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13049-015-0119-x |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Simon Sulser, Dirk Ubmann, Martin Brueesch, Georg Goliasch, Burkhardt Seifert, Donat R Spahn, Kurt Ruetzler |
Abstract |
Especially in the emergency setting, rapid and successful airway management is of major importance. Conventional endotracheal intubation is challenging and requires high level of individual skills and experience. Videolaryngoscopes like the C-MAC are likely to offer better glottis visualization and serve as alternatives to conventional endotracheal intubation. The aim of this study is to compare clinical performance and feasibility of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope compared to conventional endotracheal intubation in the emergency setting. This study is designed as a prospective, patient-blinded, mono-center, randomized cohort study. This study will be performed at the Emergency Department of the University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. All patients transferred to the Emergency Department and requiring emergent endotracheal intubation will be screened. Successful intubation with first intubation attempt will serve as the primary outcome. Time to intubation, intubation attempts, Cormack & Lehane Score, ease of intubation, complications, necessity of using alternate intubation device, maximum drop of saturation, and potential technical problems serve as secondary outcomes. In the clinical setting, the ultimate success rate of endotracheal intubation ranges between 97% and 99%. Unexpected difficulties during laryngoscopy and poor glottis visualization occur in up to 9% of all cases. In these cases, videolaryngoscopes may increase success rate of initial intubation attempt and thereby patient safety. www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier NCT02297113 ). |
Twitter Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Malaysia | 1 | 25% |
United States | 1 | 25% |
Unknown | 2 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 50% |
Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Mexico | 1 | 3% |
Portugal | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 34 | 94% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 6 | 17% |
Other | 5 | 14% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 11% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 8% |
Other | 10 | 28% |
Unknown | 5 | 14% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 72% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 3% |
Arts and Humanities | 1 | 3% |
Computer Science | 1 | 3% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
Other | 0 | 0% |
Unknown | 6 | 17% |