The Airtraq Optical Laryngoscope in Helicopter Emergency Medical Services: A Pilot Trial

ObjectiveTo determine the degree of success helicopter emergency medical services personnel have in placing an endotracheal tube using a relatively new device for endotracheal intubation (ETI) known as the Airtraq (AT) Optical Laryngoscope (King Systems Corp, Noblesville, IN), and to determine the frequency with which flight crews had to resort to other means for advanced airway management.MethodsThis prospective, observational pilot trial evaluated the critical care flight team's ability to perform ETI using the AT as a first-line device in the prehospital setting. Flight crews were instructed to use the AT for any patient needing ETI. Teams completed a 30-minute training session followed by mannequin practice. They documented situations and outcomes: reason for ETI, success in placing the AT, reason for unsuccessful placement, end-tidal carbon dioxide concentration in expired air (ETCO2), and where patients were when they underwent intubation (field, ambulance, aircraft, hospital). Data were abstracted and analyzed using JMP software version 7.0 (SAS Institute, Inc, Cary, NC).ResultsFifty cases involving use of the AT were analyzed. Median patient age was 51.5 years (range, 15–90; interquartile range, 36–64.5). Most patients were male (n = 37 [74%]). The primary reasons for intubation were unresponsiveness and altered loss of consciousness (n = 23 [46%]), respiratory distress or apnea (n = 8 [16%]), cardiac arrest (n = 10 [20%]), and combative behavior (n = 7 [14%]). AT was successful (n = 31[62%]) in 1 to 2 attempts. The primary reason for AT failure was blood or vomit in the airway (n = 8 [42.1%]); 48.1% (n = 25) of patients required a different management mode.ConclusionsHEMS crews had difficulty placing successful ET tubes with this device after minimal education with a single regular-sized device. Difficulty was pronounced when blood or vomit was present and obstructing the optical view. Further study is needed to evaluate the implementation time, training time required, and possible design advantages of the AT compared with those of traditional emergent airway management techniques.