English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

With different videolaryngoscopes for pediatric patients available, UEScope can be used in all age groups. The aim of this study was to compare the Miller laryngoscope and UEScope in pediatric intubation by paramedics in different scenarios. Overall, 93 paramedics with no experience in pediatric intubation or videolaryngoscopy performed endotracheal intubation in scenarios: (A) normal airway without chest compressions, (B) difficult airway without chest compressions, (C) normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, (D) difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. Scenario A. Total intubation success with both laryngoscopes: 100%. First-attempt success: 100% for UEScope, 96.8% for Miller. Median intubation time for UEScope: 13 s [IQR, 12.5-17], statistically significantly lower than for Miller: 14 s [IQR, 12-19.5] (p = 0.044). Scenario B. Total efficacy: 81.7% for Miller, 100% for UEScope (p = 0.012). First-attempt success: 48.4% for Miller, 87.1% for UEScope (p = 0.001). Median intubation time: 27 s [IQR, 21-33] with Miller, 15 s [IQR, 14-21] with UEScope (p = 0.001). Scenario C. Total efficiency: 91.4% with Miller, 100% with UEScope (p = 0.018); first-attempt success: 67.7 vs. 90.3% (p = 0.003), respectively. Intubation time: 21 s [IQR, 18-28] for Miller, 15 s [IQR, 12-19.5] for UEScope. Scenario D. Total efficiency: 65.6% with Miller, 98.9% with UEScope (p &lt; 0.001); first-attempt success: 29.1 vs. 72% (p = 0.001), respectively. Intubation time: 38 s [IQR, 23-46] for Miller, 21 s [IQR, 17-25.5] for UEScope.Conclusion: In pediatric normal airway without chest compressions, UEScope is comparable with Miller. In difficult pediatric airways without chest compressions, UEScope offers better first-attempt success, shorted median intubation time, and improved glottic visualization. With uninterrupted chest compressions in normal or difficult airway, UEScope provides a higher first-attempt success, a shorter median intubation time, and a better glottic visualization than Miller laryngoscope. What is Known: • Endotracheal intubation is the gold standard for adult and children airway management. • More than two direct laryngoscopy attempts in children with difficult airways are associated with a high failure rate and increased incidence of severe complications. What is New: • In difficult pediatric airways with or without chest compressions, UEScope in inexperienced providers in simulated settings provides better first-attempt efficiency, median intubation time, and glottic visualization.

european journal of pediatrics

Comparison of Miller laryngoscope and UEScope videolaryngoscope for endotracheal intubation in four pediatric airway scenarios: a randomized, crossover simulation trial