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

Purposes: This study compared the Airway scope (AWS) to the Macintosh laryngoscope (ML) during chest compressions on a fresh cadaver.

Methods: This 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.

Results: Twenty-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.

Conclusion: Considering the lack of experience with the AWS, AWS could be an alternative intubation device during chest compressions after practices with AWS.