Airway scope vs Macintosh laryngoscope during chest compressions on a fresh cadaver model

PurposesThis study compared the Airway scope (AWS) to the Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) during chest compressions on a fresh cadaver.MethodsThis was a prospective crossover study. The participants who had experiences with AWS were excluded. The participants intubated with randomly assigned AWS or ML on a fresh cadaver during chest compressions. Primary outcome were as follows: time to intubation, ease of intubation (rated by using the visual analog scale [VAS]), and intubation success rate.ResultsTwenty-five were enrolled. Median time of intubation was similar between the AWS and ML (AWS, 18.5 seconds vs ML, 18.3 seconds; P = .112). The median VAS of AWS and ML were 3.0 and 2.0, respectively (P = .023). There was no failure of intubation. However, participants replied that the AWS was more difficult to use than the ML.ConclusionConsidering the lack of experience with the AWS, AWS could be an alternative intubation device during chest compressions after practices with AWS.