Effect of the use of a video laryngoscope and bougie on the performance of endotracheal intubation on the ground by novice prehospital caregivers: a randomized simulation study

Objective@#This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a bougie and glidescope video laryngoscope (GVL) for ground intubation by novice prehospital caregivers. We hypothesized that the intubation outcome using a bougie or GVL was superior to that using the Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL) with a stylet (MCLS) in ground intubation. @*Methods@#A randomized crossover manikin study was conducted. Studied groups were categorized into 4 according to the intubation devices used; MCLS, Macintosh laryngoscope with bougie (MCLB), glidescope video laryngoscope with a stylet (GVLS), and glidescope video laryngoscope with bougie (GVLB). The primary outcome was the total endotracheal intubation time and the secondary outcome was the success rate for endotracheal intubation. @*Results@#The use of a bougie did not cause a significant difference in the intubation time (MCLS vs. MCLB, P=0.213; GVLS vs. GVLB, P=0.633) and the success rate of endotracheal intubation (MCLS vs. MCLB, P>0.990; GVLS vs. GVLB, P=0.077) was compared with the use of a stylet in MCL and GVL. The use of GVL showed a longer endotracheal intubation time compared with MCLS (MCLS vs. GVLS, P<0.001; MCLS vs. GVLB, P<0.001). GVLB showed a decreased success rate of endotracheal intubation compared with the use of MCL (MCLS vs. GVLB, P=0.004; MCLB vs. GVLB, P<0.001). @*Conclusion@#The use of the GVL and a bougie could not affect the performance of endotracheal intubation on the ground. The use of MCL and a stylet for ground intubation could increase the intubation success rate and shorten intubation time compared with the use of a bougie or the use of GVL.

Effect of the use of a video laryngoscope and bougie on the performance of endotracheal intubation on the ground by novice prehospital caregivers: a randomized simulation study

Objective@#This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a bougie and glidescope video laryngoscope (GVL) for ground intubation by novice prehospital caregivers. We hypothesized that the intubation outcome using a bougie or GVL was superior to that using the Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL) with a stylet (MCLS) in ground intubation. @*Methods@#A randomized crossover manikin study was conducted. Studied groups were categorized into 4 according to the intubation devices used; MCLS, Macintosh laryngoscope with bougie (MCLB), glidescope video laryngoscope with a stylet (GVLS), and glidescope video laryngoscope with bougie (GVLB). The primary outcome was the total endotracheal intubation time and the secondary outcome was the success rate for endotracheal intubation. @*Results@#The use of a bougie did not cause a significant difference in the intubation time (MCLS vs. MCLB, P=0.213; GVLS vs. GVLB, P=0.633) and the success rate of endotracheal intubation (MCLS vs. MCLB, P>0.990; GVLS vs. GVLB, P=0.077) was compared with the use of a stylet in MCL and GVL. The use of GVL showed a longer endotracheal intubation time compared with MCLS (MCLS vs. GVLS, P<0.001; MCLS vs. GVLB, P<0.001). GVLB showed a decreased success rate of endotracheal intubation compared with the use of MCL (MCLS vs. GVLB, P=0.004; MCLB vs. GVLB, P<0.001). @*Conclusion@#The use of the GVL and a bougie could not affect the performance of endotracheal intubation on the ground. The use of MCL and a stylet for ground intubation could increase the intubation success rate and shorten intubation time compared with the use of a bougie or the use of GVL.

The Characteristics of Firefighter Burn Injuries in a Burn Center: A Retrospective Epidemiological Study

PURPOSE: Firefighters are vulnerable to burn injury during firefighting. In extensive fires, conducted heat and radiant heat can cause burn injury even though firefighters are not directly exposed to fire. There has been increasing interest in the health problems of firefighters considerably since Hongje-dong fire of 2001, which claimed the lives of six fireman. However, there have been no studies done on the characteristics of firefighter burn injuries in South Korea. Therefore, we investigated the characteristics of firefighter burn injuries in a burn center. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center research was performed between Jan 2006 to Dec 2015. 24 firefighters came to the burn center. The electronic medical records of patients were reviewed. RESULTS: Flame burns (87.5%) were the major cause of burn in firefighter. All the patients suffered second-degree or third-degree burns. Mean burn size was 6.1±6.7%. 22 of 24 patients were hospitalized and 2 of 22 hospitalized patients admitted to intensive care unit. Mean length of hospitalization was 29.1±23.7 days and mean length of intensive care unit hospitalization was 6.0±1.4 days. The face was the site most commonly burned, representing 25.8% of injuries. The hand/wrist, upper extremity, and neck were the next largest groups, with 19.4, 12.9, 11.3% of the injuries, respectively. CONCLUSION: Firefighter burn injuries occur to predictable anatomic sites with common injury patterns. The burn size was small but, admitted patients need about 30 days of hospitalization.

Evaluation of the Nanopia P-FDP Reagent Kit for Use in the STA-R EVOLUTION Automated Blood Coagulation Analyzer / 임상검사와정도관리

BACKGROUND: In this study on fibrinogen/fibrin degradation products (FDPs), we evaluated the performance of a quantitative immunoturbidimetric assay (ITA) using the new Nanopia P-FDP reagent kit (Sekisui Medical Co., Japan) in comparison with a semiquantitative latex agglutination assay (LA) currently performed using the FDP PLASMA kit (Diagnostica Stago SAS, France). METHODS: The quantitative Nanopia P-FDP method using the STA-R EVOLUTION automated coagulation analyzer (Diagnostica Stago SAS) was evaluated with respect to precision, linearity, carryover, and reference interval. The correlations were measured for each of the 145 samples by using the Nanopia P-FDP method and the semiquantitative FDP PLASMA method. RESULTS: The coefficients of variation with regard to precision in low and high control concentrations were 2.97% and 5.77%, respectively. The correlation coefficient of linearity (r) was 0.990 in the measurement range of 2.4-122.8 microg/mL. The level of carryover was 0.83%, while the reference interval range was 0.22-4.32 microg/mL. The results of FDP assay showed an acceptable accord in 115 samples (79%) among the 145 samples by both LA method and ITA method. Seventeen samples (12%) showed relatively lower FDP values in the LA method than those in the ITA method. Thirteen cases (9%) showed relatively higher FDP values in the LA method than those in the ITA method. CONCLUSIONS: The quantitative Nanopia P-FDP method showed good precision, linearity, carryover, reference interval, and an acceptable concordance rate with the semiquantitative FDP PLASMA method. Thus, the Nanopia P-FDP reagent using the STA-R EVOLUTION automated coagulation analyzer can replace the FDP PLASMA reagent for the quantitative analysis of FDPs.