Comparison of the utility of the P entax A irway S cope ( AWS ) with that of the conventional M acintosh laryngoscope during chest compression: is the AWS an easy‐to‐use device for a novice?

Aim The P entax A irway S cope occasionally contacts the arm of the chest compressor at insertion because of its large body. Here, we test the A irway S cope's ease of use compared to that of the conventional M acintosh laryngoscope during chest compression, when operated by a novice. Methods We recruited 73 participants into this simulation study. Each participant carried out tracheal intubation using the two devices without and with chest compression. We recorded the time to intubation and the success rate. All of the participants completed a brief questionnaire after finishing the attempts. Results Data are medians and ranges. The time to intubation (seconds) without and with chest compression were 11 (7–57) and 13 (7–90) by the M acintosh laryngoscope, respectively, and 14 (6–46) and 15 (6–69) by the A irway S cope, respectively. The difference in the time to intubation between the groups without and with chest compression was significant for the M acintosh laryngoscope ( P  = 0.0434) but not significant for the A irway S cope. The time to intubation in the A irway S cope attempts were slightly longer than those in the M acintosh laryngoscope attempts (not significant). The success rate using the M acintosh laryngoscope with chest compression was significantly lower than that without chest compression (92% versus 100%, P  = 0.0124). The success rate using the A irway S cope was 100%, but an accident occurred in four attempts. The questionnaire revealed that 54 participants preferred the A irway S cope and 19 preferred the M acintosh laryngoscope. Conclusion The P entax A irway S cope appears to be better than the M acintosh laryngoscope during chest compression if the operator is a novice. However, using the A irway S cope does not always reduce the time to intubation.