We have located links that may give you full text access.
Flexible nasotracheal intubation compared to blind nasotracheal intubation in the setting of simulated angioedema.
American Journal of Emergency Medicine 2019 Februrary 12
BACKGROUND: Nasotracheal intubation is rarely performed in the emergency department (ED) but may be required in specific situations such as angioedema. Both blind and flexible nasal intubation (FNI) may be utilized; however, the preferred technique is unknown.
METHODS: We performed a randomized, crossover manikin study using a convenience sample of emergency physicians and medical students from a local community teaching hospital. Using a simulated angioedema model, we sought to compare the time required to successfully perform nasotracheal intubation between traditional blind nasotracheal intubation and FNI. Participants performed nasal intubation with both FNI using the Ambu aScope Slim (Ambu, Ballarup, Denmark) and blind nasal intubation with a Parker Endotrol tube (Parker, CO) in random order. Number of attempts and time to successful intubation (TTI) were compared between treatment devices. Providers were stratified by experience level, defining junior providers as post-graduate level 2 and below (including medical students) and all others as senior providers.
RESULTS: We enrolled a convenience sample of 20 providers ranging from medical students to attendings. Overall, the TTI did not differ between blind and FNI intubation techniques (difference in seconds; 95% confidence interval) (21.4; -2.1 to 44.9; p = 0.07). This was consistent across provider types: senior providers (26.6; -17.7 to 71; p = 0.24) and junior providers (18.6; -8.3 to 46.5; p = 0.18). Number of attempts was similar between techniques (p = 0.55).
CONCLUSION: FNI and blind nasal intubation require similar time to intubation in this simulated model of angioedema.
METHODS: We performed a randomized, crossover manikin study using a convenience sample of emergency physicians and medical students from a local community teaching hospital. Using a simulated angioedema model, we sought to compare the time required to successfully perform nasotracheal intubation between traditional blind nasotracheal intubation and FNI. Participants performed nasal intubation with both FNI using the Ambu aScope Slim (Ambu, Ballarup, Denmark) and blind nasal intubation with a Parker Endotrol tube (Parker, CO) in random order. Number of attempts and time to successful intubation (TTI) were compared between treatment devices. Providers were stratified by experience level, defining junior providers as post-graduate level 2 and below (including medical students) and all others as senior providers.
RESULTS: We enrolled a convenience sample of 20 providers ranging from medical students to attendings. Overall, the TTI did not differ between blind and FNI intubation techniques (difference in seconds; 95% confidence interval) (21.4; -2.1 to 44.9; p = 0.07). This was consistent across provider types: senior providers (26.6; -17.7 to 71; p = 0.24) and junior providers (18.6; -8.3 to 46.5; p = 0.18). Number of attempts was similar between techniques (p = 0.55).
CONCLUSION: FNI and blind nasal intubation require similar time to intubation in this simulated model of angioedema.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app