Glidescope Video Laryngoscope Training Series - #3

Griesdale makes a significant point in this paper with the

Can J Anaesth. 2012 Jan;59(1):41-52. 

Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Griesdale DE, Liu D, McKinney J, Choi PT.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

The Glidescope(®) video-laryngoscopy appears to provide better glottic visualization than direct laryngoscopy. However, it remains unclear if it translates into increased success with intubation.

METHODS:

We systematically searched electronic databases, conference abstracts, and article references. We included trials in humans comparing Glidescope(®) video-laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy regarding the glottic view, successful first-attempt intubation, and time to intubation. We generated pooled risk ratios or weighted mean differences across studies. Meta-regression was used to explore heterogeneity based on operator expertise and intubation difficulty.

RESULTS:

We included 17 trials with a total of 1,998 patients. The pooled relative risk (RR) of grade 1 laryngoscopy (vs ≥ grade 2) for the Glidescope(®) was 2.0 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5 to 2.5]. Significant heterogeneity was partially explained by intubation difficulty using meta-regression analysis (P = 0.003). The pooled RR for nondifficult intubations of grade 1 laryngoscopy (vs ≥ grade 2) was 1.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 1.9), and for difficult intubations it was 3.5 (95% CI 2.3 to 5.5). There was no difference between the Glidescope(®) and the direct laryngoscope regarding successful first-attempt intubation or time to intubation, although there was significant heterogeneity in both of these outcomes. In the two studies examining nonexperts, successful first-attempt intubation (RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.4) and time to intubation (weighted mean difference -43 sec, 95% CI -72 to -14 sec) were improved using the Glidescope(®). These benefits were not seen with experts.

CONCLUSION:

Compared to direct laryngoscopy, Glidescope(®) video-laryngoscopy is associated with improved glottic visualization, particularly in patients with potential or simulated difficult airways.

Glidescope Video Laryngoscope Training Series #2 - ER Resident Training

Learning Curves for Direct Laryngoscopy and GlideScope®

Video Laryngoscopy in an Emergency Medicine Residency

John C Sakles, MD*Jarrod Mosier, MD*Asad E. Patanwala, PharmD† John Dicken, BS‡

Supervising Section Editor: John Ashurst, DO

Introduction: Our objective is to evaluate the resident learning curves for direct laryngoscopy

(DL) and GlideScope® video laryngoscopy (GVL) over the course of an emergency medicine (EM) residency training program.

Methods: 

    This was an analysis of intubations performed in the emergency department (ED) by EM residents over a seven-year period from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2014 at an academic ED with 70,000 annual visits. After EM residents perform an intubation in the ED they complete a continuous quality improvement (CQI) form. Data collected includes patient demographics, operator post- graduate year (PGY), difficult airway characteristics (DACs), method of intubation, device used for intubation and outcome of each attempt. We included in this analysis only adult intubations performed by EM residents using a DL or a standard reusable GVL. The primary outcome was first pass success, defined as a successful intubation with a single laryngoscope insertion. 

     First pass success was evaluated for each PGY of training for DL and GVL. Logistic mixed-effects models were constructed for each device to determine the effect of PGY level on first pass success, after adjusting for important confounders.

Results: 

     Over the seven-year period, the DL was used as the initial device on 1,035 patients and

the GVL was used as the initial device on 578 patients by EM residents. When using the DL the first past success of PGY-1 residents was 69.9% (160/229; 95% CI 63.5%-75.7%), of PGY-2 residents was 71.7% (274/382; 95% CI 66.9%-76.2%), and of PGY-3 residents was 72.9% (309/424; 95% CI 68.4%-77.1%). When using the GVL the first pass success of PGY-1 residents was 74.4% (87/117; 95% CI 65.5%-82.0%), of PGY-2 residents was 83.6% (194/232; 95% CI 76.7%-87.7%), and of PGY-3 residents was 90.0% (206/229; 95% CI 85.3%-93.5%). In the mixed-effects model for DL, first pass success for PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents did not improve compared to PGY-1 residents (PGY-2 aOR 1.3, 95% CI 0.9-1.9; p-value 0.236) (PGY-3 aOR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.2, p-value 0.067).

However, in the model for GVL, first pass success for PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents improved

compared to PGY-1 residents (PGY-2 aOR 2.1, 95% CI 1.1-3.8, p-value 0.021) (PGY-3 aOR 4.1, 95% CI 2.1-8.0, p<0.001).

Conclusion: 

Over the course of residency training there was no signifcant improvement in EM resident first pass success with the DL, but substantial improvement with the GVL. 

Full text available through open access at http://escholarship.org/uc/uciem_westjem

DOI: 10.5811/westjem.2014.9.23691    [West J Emerg Med 1-8].

University of Arizona, Department of Emergency Medicine, Tucson, Arizona

University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Department of Pharmacy Practice and

Science, Tucson, Arizona

University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona

Glidescope Video Laryngoscope Training Series - # 1 The need for Specific training

The training conundrum - VL and FOB

The same problem that afflicts training programs for FOB use is also present for training of VL. There is an increment of skill for both device categories that demands specific skill training and importantly competence testing. Teachers have variable approaches to teaching these devices  which colors the outcomes.

John Fiadjoe's group has produced an excellent paper showing the outcomes with the Glidescope Cobalt Paediatric VL when compared with the Flexible Scope category. The manikin study has relevance because it focusses on the operator / device interaction with a standardized Pierre Robin test base. The real patient has other confounding issues like secretions and blood that I submit could influence the equation in favor of VL but this is not the thrust of the paper.

Paediatr Anaesth. 2015 Aug;25(8):801-6. doi: 10.1111/pan.12668. Epub 2015 Apr 27.

A randomized multi-institutional crossover comparison of the GlideScope® Cobalt Video laryngoscope to the flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope in a Pierre Robin manikin.

Fiadjoe JE1, Hirschfeld M1, Wu S1, Markley J1, Gurnaney H1, Jawad AF1, Stricker P1, Kilbaugh T1, Ross P2, Kovatsis P3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 

The GlideScope Cobalt Video laryngoscope is being used more often in children with challenging laryngoscopy. There are, however, no pediatric trials comparing it to flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy, the current accepted gold standard. This preliminary manikin study compares the first-attempt intubation success of the GlideScope Cobalt video laryngoscope to the flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope when performed by attending pediatric anesthesiologists at two major pediatric centers.

METHODS: 

This prospective randomized, crossover study evaluated 120 attempts (60 with each study device) to intubate the AirSim Pierre Robin manikin (PRM) with fiberoptic bronchoscopy and video laryngoscopy (VL). Attending pediatric anesthesiologists from two quaternary pediatric centers were eligible to participate. Each attending anesthesiologist randomly performed a single tracheal intubation attempt with one of the study devices followed by the alternate method. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate of tracheal intubation. Blinding was not feasible. We hypothesized that first-attempt success would be higher with fiberoptic bronchoscopy.

RESULTS: 

Thirty anesthesiologists from each center were randomized to use one of the study devices followed by the alternate method. We analyzed all participants' data. There was no overall difference in first-attempt success between VL and fiberoptic bronchoscopy (88.3% vs 85% respectively, P = 0.59). There were significant institutional differences in first-attempt success using VL (76.7% vs 100%).

CONCLUSIONS: 

There was no difference in first-attempt success of tracheal intubation using VL vs fiberoptic bronchoscopy when performed by attending anesthesiologists at two large pediatric centers. However, institutional differences exist in success rates with VL across the two centers. Results from single-center device evaluations should be verified by multi-center evaluations. A significant proportion of attending anesthesiologists lack experience with advanced airway devices; targeted education may enhance intubation success and patient safety.