A comparison of tracheal intubation using intubrite laryngoscope and conventional MAC laryngoscope: An open,...

New devices are more available in the pre-hospital environment operational theaters and emergency departments. One is an intubrite laryngoscope (INT) with Dual LED lighting that combines ultraviolet and white LED. The study aimed to compare the efficacy of endotracheal intubation using INT and conventional laryngoscope performed by inexperienced paramedics (paramedics students) and paramedics with experience in advanced airways management in full and limited accessibility settings.

It was an open, prospective, crossover manikin study. Sixty paramedics and paramedic students were recruited. Participants were divided into 2 equal groups depending on their experience (n = 30). Experienced participants were further randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 15). Inexperienced participants were also randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 15). The criterion of inexperience was 5 or fewer intubation by any laryngoscope. Inexperience participants were asked to perform tracheal intubation in standard pre-hospital settings (without limited access to manikin) (scenario A) and difficult pre-hospital settings (limited access to manikin - narrow space between benches) (scenario B). Experience participants were asked to intubate manikin in difficult pre-hospital settings.

In the normal pre-hospital environment, the success rate after the first attempt was 56,7% for conventional laryngoscope and 66,7% for intubrite. However, the overall effectiveness of tracheal intubation using both laryngoscopes in 3 attempts was 90% for both devices. The successful rate of first attempt intubation in a difficult environment by inexperienced was 73,3% for INT and 50% for conventional laryngoscope. Overall effectiveness was 83,3% and 86,7% respectively. The successful rate of first attempt intubation in the experienced group was 86,7% with INT compared to 60% with a conventional laryngoscope in difficult settings. Overall effectiveness was 96,7% for both devices.

Intubrite provided better working conditions and make up for deficiencies in successful tracheal intubation by inexperienced participants in a normal and difficult environment. Tracheal intubation with intubrite was more effective in the experienced group. Tracheal intubation effectiveness with intubrite was also higher in the experienced group.