A randomized crossover comparison of the bébé VieScope and direct laryngoscope for pediatric airway management by nurses in medical simulation settings

ABSTRACT

Background

Airway management in life-threatening emergencies is essential for children, and endotracheal intubation is the gold standard. It protects against regurgitation and enables mechanical ventilation. New types of airway management equipment are being developed and implemented to meet the needs of medical personnel.

Research design and methods

This prospective, randomized, cross-over simulation trial evaluated the success of endotracheal intubation in three scenarios: normal airway (scenario-A), tongue edema (scenario-B), and continuous chest compression (scenario-C), using the bébé Vie Scope™ laryngoscope (VieScope) and the Macintosh blade laryngoscope (MAC) as a comparative tool performed by nurses with limited tracheal intubation experience.

Results

The results of the study showed that in scenario-A, there were no significant differences in the first attempt success rate or endotracheal intubation time between VieScope and MAC. However, VieScope was associated with better visualization of the glottis. In scenarios B and C, VieScope was significantly more effective than MAC in terms of first-pass success rate, time to intubate, Cormack-Lehane grade, POGO score, and ease of endotracheal intubation.

Conclusions

Bébé VieScope may be useful for endotracheal intubation in pediatric patients, particularly in cases of tongue edema and ongoing chest compression, providing a higher first-pass success rate than conventional laryngoscopes.

KEYWORDS:

• endotracheal intubation
• bebe VieScope
• direct laryngoscope
• difficult airway

Declaration of interest

The authors have no other relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript apart from those disclosed.

Reviewers disclosure

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial relationships or otherwise to disclose.

Author contributions

Conceptualization, P.W. and L.S.; methodology, P.W.; software, P.W., A.N. and L.S.; validation, B.C., M.M. and J.S.; formal analysis, P.W., A.N. and M.M.; investigation, P.W., M.P., M.K., W.W., L.S., M.Z. and J.S.; resources, P.W., N.L.B, and L.S.; data curation, P.W. and A.N.; writing – original draft preparation, P.W., L.S., B.C. and J.S.; writing – review and editing, P.W., M.P., M.K., W.W., B.C., L.S., A.N., M.M., M.Z., N.L.B., J.S.; visualization, P.W. and L.S.; supervision, L.S. and J.S.; project administration, P.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Institutional Review Board statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Polish Society of Disaster Medicine (12.04.2022.IRB; 02.04.2022).

Informed consent statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data availability statement

The data supporting this study’s findings are available on request from the corresponding author (L.S.).

Acknowledgments

The ERC Research Net and the Polish Society of Disaster Medicine supported the study.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by Wroclaw Medical University grant (SUBZ.E240.22.009).