Advertisement
Advanced Search
To read this article in full, please review your options for gaining access at the bottom of the page.

To view the full text, please login as a subscribed user or purchase a subscription. Click here to view the full text on ScienceDirect.

Figures

Fig. 1

Simulated difficult airway model.

Fig. 2

Simulated limited view of glottic opening.

Abstract

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to compare 4 different gum-elastic bougies (GEBs) for differences in success rate, speed of intubation, and device preference.

Methods

This was a randomized study of 4 different GEBs (Sunmed, Portex, Greenfield, and Eschmann) used by emergency medicine (EM) and anesthesiology residents and attending physicians on a simulated difficult airway model. Success, time to intubation, and personal preference were recorded for each participant. Data were compared with analysis of variance, χ2 and t tests, and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) where appropriate. P < .05 was considered significant.

Results

Twenty-one participants from EM (16 residents, 5 faculty) and 13 from anesthesia (9 residents, 4 faculty) were entered into the study. Overall success rates were 88% for Sunmed, 68% for Portex, 88% for Greenfield, and 79% for Eschmann. Participants were significantly more likely to be successful when using either the Sunmed or the Greenfield GEB compared with the Portex GEB (relative risk [RR] = 1.3, 95% CI = 1.0-15.6). Success rate by specialty was significantly different with 60 (71%) of 84 for EM physicians and 50 (96%) of 52 for anesthesiologists. Speed of intubation was a mean ± SD of 22.5 ± 9.7 seconds, with no significant difference by GEB or specialty. Participants were significantly more likely to prefer the Sunmed over the Greenfield (P = .001, RR = 6.9, 95% CI = 1.5-24.8) and the Eschmann over the Greenfield (P = .003, RR = 6.1, 95% CI = 1.6-63.0).

Conclusion

Emergency medicine physicians had better success rates using the Sunmed and Greenfield GEBs but low preference for the Greenfield GEB.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Log In


Forgot password?

Register

Create a new account

Purchase access to this article

Claim Access

If you are a current subscriber with Society Membership or an Account Number, claim your access now.

Subscribe to this title

Purchase a subscription to gain access to this and all other articles in this journal.

Institutional Access

Visit ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.

Related Articles

Searching for related articles..

Advertisement