evaluation of karl storz cmac tiptm device versus traditional airway suction in a cadaver model
Clicks: 203
ID: 253336
2014
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
30.0
/100
203 views
35 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
SteadyRanked #94 of 140 articles by views in lwt
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 140 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Introduction: We compared the efficacy of Karl Storz CMAC TipTM with inline suction to CMAC with traditional suction device in cadaveric models simulating difficult airways, using media mimicking pulmonary edema and vomit.
Methods: This was a prospective, cohort study in which we invited emergency medicine faculty and residents to participate. Each participant intubated 2 cadavers (one with simulated pulmonary edema and one with simulated vomit), using CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Thirty emergency medicine providers performed 4 total intubations each in a crossover trial comparing the CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Two intubations were performed with simulated vomit and two with simulated pulmonary edema. The primary outcome was time to successful intubation; and the secondary outcome was proportion of successful intubation.
Results: The median time to successful intubation using the CMAC with inline suction versus traditional suction in the pulmonary edema group was 29s and 30s respectively (p=0.54). In the vomit simulation, the median time to successful intubation was 40s using the CMAC with inline suction and 41s using the CMAC with traditional suction (p=0.70). There were no significant differences in time to successful intubation between the 2 devices. Similarly, the proportions of successful intubation were also not statistically significant between the 2 devices. The proportions of successful intubations using the inline suction were 96.7% and 73.3%, for the pulmonary edema and vomit groups, respectively. Additionally using the handheld suction device, the proportions for the pulmonary edema and vomit group were 100% and 66.7%, respectively.
Conclusion: CMAC with inline suction was no different than CMAC with traditional suction and was associated with no statistically significant differences in median time to intubation or proportion of successful intubations. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(4):548-553.]
| Reference Key |
lipe2014westernevaluation
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Demis N. Lipe;Randi Lindstrom;Dustin Tauferner;Christopher Mitchell;Peter Moffett |
| Journal | lwt |
| Year | 2014 |
| DOI |
10.5811/westjem.2014.3.21646
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.