Pre-hospital i-gel blind intubation for trauma: a simulation study.
- Author:
Jae Guk KIM
1
;
Wonhee KIM
;
Gu Hyun KANG
;
Yong Soo JANG
;
Hyun Young CHOI
;
Hyeongtae KIM
;
Minji KIM
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Intubation; Airway management; Emergency medical technicians; Simulation training
- MeSH: Airway Management; Allied Health Personnel; Cross-Over Studies; Emergency Medical Technicians; Humans; Intubation*; Laryngeal Masks; Laryngoscopes; Prospective Studies; Simulation Training
- From: Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine 2018;5(1):29-34
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- Abstract: OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of i-gel blind intubation (IGI) as a rescue device for definitive airway management in ground intubation for pre-hospital trauma patients. METHODS: A prospective randomized crossover study was conducted with 18 paramedics to examine intubation performance of two blind intubation techniques through a supraglottic airway devices (IGI and laryngeal mask airway Fastrach), compared with use of a Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL). Each intubation was conducted at two levels of patient positions (ground- and stretcher-level). Primary outcomes were the intubation time and the success rate for intubation. RESULTS: The intubation time (sec) of each intubation technique was not significantly different between the two positions. In both patient positions, the intubation time of IGI was shortest among the three intubation techniques (17.9±5.2 at the ground-level and 16.9±3.8 at the stretcher-level). In the analysis of cumulative success rate and intubation time, IGI was the fastest to reach 100% success among the three intubation techniques regardless of patient position (all P < 0.017). The success of intubation was only affected by the intubation technique, and IGI achieved more success than MCL (odds ratio, 3.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 11.6; P=0.03). CONCLUSION: The patient position did not affect intubation performance. Additionally, the intubation time with blind intubation through supraglottic airway devices, especially with IGI, was significantly shorter than that with MCL.
