These difficulties have led to the increasing use of alternative airway devices such as Combitube®, Laryngeal Tube® and Laryngeal Mask Airway® for airway management in the pre-hospital setting contexts [29-31], due to the rapid learning curves associated with these devices [32,33]. However trauma to the airway and aspiration injury remains a significant risk with these devices in these patients. Conventional direct laryngoscopic laryngoscopes, such as the Macintosh laryngoscope, require the alignment of oral and tracheal axes in order to view the glottic www.selleckchem.com/products/pexidartinib-plx3397.html opening. This is

a difficult skill to successfully acquire [26,27,34], and to maintain Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical [28], particularly if the opportunities to practice this skill are limited. Both the Glidescope® (Figure ​(Figure1)1) and AWS® (Figure ​(Figure2)2) devices have an exaggerated blade curvature with enhanced optics that give Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical a view of the glottis without the need

to align the oral and tracheal axes. Both devices are portable, and could Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical be easily included in ambulance equipment inventories. We therefore wished to determine whether these devices possessed advantages over the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope when used by paramedics in the setting of normal and simulated difficult intubation. Our study demonstrated that both the Glidescope® and AWS® devices demonstrated several advantages over the Macintosh laryngoscope, in both the normal and in the difficult intubation scenario. Both devices Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical reduced the duration of tracheal intubation attempts in the cervical immobilization scenario, a situation commonly seen in the emergency pre-hospital setting. While the degree to which these devices reduced the time required to secure the airway appears relatively small, of the order of 5 Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical – 10 seconds, it must be remembered that brain hypoxia may rapidly supervene in the emergency setting. In addition, these devices reduced the number of optimization maneuvers

and reduced the potential for dental trauma when compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope. Of the two indirect laryngoscopes studies, despite largely comparable performance in other measures of difficulty, the APs found the AWS® easier to use in each scenario. The AWS® caused the least amount L-NAME HCl of dental compressions in each scenario. The structure of the blade of the AWS®, particularly the incorporation of a side channel for the ETT, may explain its better performance in these respects compared to the Glidescope. Both the Glidescope® and AWS® devices exhibited a rapid learning curve, despite a deliberately brief instruction period. In the repeated easy laryngocsopy scenario, the duration of intubation attempts were significantly reduced for both the Glidescope® and AWS® laryngoscopes compared to the first scenario.