Comparison of a New Video Intubation Stylet and McGrath® MAC Video Laryngoscope for Intubation in an Airway Manikin with Normal Airway and Cervical Spine Immobilization Scenarios by Novice Personnel: A Randomized Crossover Study

The use of both a video laryngoscope and a video intubation stylet, compared with the use of a direct laryngoscope, is not only easier to learn but also associated with a higher success rate in performing endotracheal intubation for novice users. However, data comparing the two video devices used by novice personnel are rarely found in literature. Nondelayed intubation is an important condition to determine the prognosis in critically ill patients; hence, exploring intubation performance in various situations is of clinical significance. This study is aimed at comparing a video stylet and a video laryngoscope for intubation in an airway manikin with normal airway and cervical spine immobilization scenarios by novice personnel. We compared the performance of intubation by novices between the Aram Video Stylet and the McGrath® MAC video laryngoscope in an airway manikin. Thirty medical doctors with minimal experience of endotracheal intubation attempted intubation on a manikin five times with each device in each setting (normal airway and cervical spine immobilization scenarios). The order of use of the devices in each scenario was randomized for each participant. In the normal airway scenario, the Aram stylet showed a significantly higher rate of successful intubation than the McGrath® (98.7% vs. 92.0%; odds ratio (95% CI): 6.4 (1.4–29.3); p = 0.006 ). The intubation time was shorter using the Aram Stylet than that using the McGrath® video laryngoscope ( p < 0.001 ). In the cervical immobilization scenario, successful endotracheal intubation was also more frequent using the Aram stylet than with the McGrath® (96.0% vs. 87.3%; odds ratio (95% CI): 3.5 (1.3–9.0); p = 0.007 ). The Aram Stylet intubation time was shorter ( p < 0.001 ). In novice personnel, endotracheal intubation appears to be more successful and faster using the Aram Video Stylet than the McGrath® MAC video laryngoscope.

Endotracheal Intubation by Paramedics Using Neodymium Magnet and Modified Stylet in Simulated Difficult Airway: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Manikin Study

Background. The present study evaluates the success and efficacy of endotracheal intubation (ETI) using a modified intubation stylet and a magnet system to direct the stylet into the trachea. The system was developed by the researchers in an attempt to increase the success and efficacy of ETI. Methods. ETI procedures were performed on an airway management manikin by emergency medical technicians with at least four years of experience in ETI. The technicians used a stylet modified with an iron ball affixed to the tip and a neodymium magnet, designed specifically for the study. The intention was to guide the endotracheal tube into the trachea at the level of the thyroid and cricoid cartilages on the manikin with the aid of the modified stylet and the magnetic force of the neodymium magnet. The success rate, completion time, and degree of difficulty of two procedures were compared: magnetic endotracheal intubation (METI) and classic ETI (CETI). Results. The success rate was 100% in both groups. The mean completion times for the METI and CETI procedures were 18.31 ± 2.46 s and 20.01 ± 1.95 s, respectively. There were significant differences in completion time and degree of difficulty between the METI and CETI procedures (both p=0.001). Conclusions. We found the use of a neodymium magnet and modified stylet to be an effective method to guide the endotracheal tube into the trachea. The present study may provide a basis for future studies.