ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Cricothyrotomy is a complex procedure with a high rate of complications including failure to cannulate and injury to adjacent anatomy. The Control-Cric™ System and QuickTrach II™ represent two novel devices designed to optimize success and minimize complications with this procedure. This study compares these two devices against a standard open surgical technique. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover study of United States Army combat medics using a synthetic cadaver model. Participants performed a surgical cricothyrotomy using the standard open surgical technique, Control-Cric™ System, and QuickTrach II™ device in a random order. The primary outcome was time to successful cannulation. The secondary outcome was first-attempt success. We also surveyed participants after performing the procedures as to their preferences. RESULTS: Of 70 enrolled subjects, 65 completed all study procedures. Of those that successfully cannulated, the mean times to cannulation were comparable for all three methods: standard 51.0s (95% CI 45.2-56.8), QuickTrach II™ 39.8s (95% CI 31.4-48.2) and the Cric-Control™ 53.6 (95% CI 45.7-61.4). Cannulation failure rates were not significantly different: standard 6.2%, QuickTrach II™ 13.9%, Cric-Control™ 18.5% (p=0.106). First pass success rates were also similar (93.4%, 91.1%, 88.7%, respectively, p=0.670). Of respondents completing the post-study survey, a majority (52.3%) preferred the QuickTrach II™ device. CONCLUSIONS: We identified no significant differences between the three cricothyrotomy techniques with regards to time to successful cannulation or first-pass success.
Subject(s)
Airway Management/instrumentation , Cricoid Cartilage/surgery , Thyroid Cartilage/surgery , Warfare , Wounds and Injuries/surgery , Cadaver , Cross-Over Studies , Emergency Medical Services , Equipment Design , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Our goal was to determine if heated gel for emergency department (ED) bedside ultrasonography improves patient satisfaction compared to room-temperature gel. METHODS: We randomized a convenience sample of ED patients determined by their treating physician to require a bedside ultrasound (US) study to either heated gel (102.0° F) or room-temperature gel (82.3° F). Investigators performed all US examinations. We informed all subjects that the study entailed investigation into various measures to improve patient satisfaction with ED US examinations but did not inform them of our specific focus on gel temperature. Investigators wore heat-resistant gloves while performing the examinations to blind themselves to the gel temperature. After completion of the US, subjects completed a survey including the primary outcome measure of patient satisfaction as measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). A secondary outcome was patient perceptions of sonographer professionalism measured by an ordinal scale (1-5). RESULTS: We enrolled 124 subjects; 120 completed all outcome measures. Of these, 59 underwent randomization to US studies with room-temperature gel and 61 underwent randomization to heated US gel. Patient 100-mm VAS satisfaction scores were 83.9 among patients undergoing studies with room-temperature gel versus 87.6 among subjects undergoing studies with heated gel (effect size 3.7, 95% confidence interval -1.3-8.6). There were similarly no differences between the two arms with regard to patient perceptions of sonographer professionalism. CONCLUSION: The use of heated ultrasound gel appears to have no material impact on the satisfaction of ED patients undergoing bedside ultrasound studies.