Full text

Turn on search term navigation

Copyright © 2025, Hunt et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.

Abstract

Background: Investigators have reported bougie use improves first-pass intubation success rates when compared to the endotracheal (ET) tube/stylet technique. We aimed to assess the difference in time to intubation and operator confidence between the Kiwi-D grip bougie and traditional bougie technique during simulated mechanical cardiopulmonary resuscitation (mCPR).

Methods: This study was a prospective, randomized comparative study at a simulation center. Consenting emergency physicians were surveyed about intubation experience, and provided structured practice for techniques. Subjects performed direct laryngoscopy (DL) using a Mac 4 blade (Karl Storz SE & Co. KG, Tuttlingen, Germany) on an adult manikin with a moderately difficult airway, during simulated mCPR (LUCAS 3.0, Stryker Corporation, Kalamazoo, MI, USA) at 100 compressions/min. Each subject was intubated using Kiwi-D and traditional bougie techniques, respectively, in a randomized order. A study author measured intubation time (blade pick up until cuff inflation) and assessed intubation success. Subjects rated intubation success confidence on a five-point scale and provided Cormack/Lehane grade. Categorical data was analyzed by chi-square and continuous data by t-tests for bivariate analyses. Multivariate linear regression was performed for intubation time. Non-parametric Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed for the ordinal categorical variables.

Results: There were 31 subjects; 87% with one to five years of experience, 52% preferred DL during CPR, 71% preferred the traditional no-preload bougie technique, and 48% had utilized a bougie >10 times. Subjects had first-pass intubation success for all but one attempt with both modalities (NS). For Kiwi-D versus traditional bougie, 48% of subjects rated a higher level of confidence for successful intubation (p=0.01), and 29% (p=0.1) reported improved glottic view. Mean time to intubation was similar for Kiwi-D versus traditional (20.6+/-9 versus 25.3+/-17s; p=0.06). The following subject characteristics were not associated with improved intubation time for Kiwi-D: 6+ years of experience (p=0.6), >10 prior intubations with a bougie (p=0.6), preloading bougie preference (p=0.4), and DL preference (p=0.4). Multivariate linear regression did not identify subject variables that were significantly associated with Kiwi-D use for improved intubation time with Kiwi-D.

Conclusion: Subjects in our study group did not have significant differences in time to intubation using Kiwi-D versus traditional bougie during simulated mCPR.

Details

Title
Comparison of Traditional Bougie Versus Kiwi-D Grip Bougie Technique During Mechanical Chest Compressions: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Trial
Author
Hunt, Kaitlin 1 ; Italiya, Shani B 1 ; Pedersen, Craig 1 ; Tom, Xu K 2 ; Kenny, Colin 1 ; Richman, Peter 3 

 Emergency Medicine, CHRISTUS Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi - Shoreline, Texas A&M (Agricultural and Mechanical) University College of Medicine, Corpus Christi, USA 
 Surgery, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) School of Medicine, Lubbock, USA, Family and Community Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center (TTUHSC) School of Medicine, Lubbock, USA 
 Emergency Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine at Christus Children’s, San Antonio, USA 
University/institution
U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine
Publication year
2025
Publication date
2025
Publisher
Springer Nature B.V.
e-ISSN
21688184
Source type
Scholarly Journal
Language of publication
English
ProQuest document ID
3203886429
Copyright
Copyright © 2025, Hunt et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.