Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul;15(4):548-53.
doi: 10.5811/westjem.2014.3.21646.

Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ device versus traditional airway suction in a cadaver model

Demis N Lipe  1 , Randi Lindstrom  1 , Dustin Tauferner  1 , Christopher Mitchell  1 , Peter Moffett  1
Affiliations

Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ device versus traditional airway suction in a cadaver model

Demis N Lipe et al. West J Emerg Med. 2014 Jul.

Abstract

Introduction: We compared the efficacy of Karl Storz CMAC Tip™ with inline suction to CMAC with traditional suction device in cadaveric models simulating difficult airways, using media mimicking pulmonary edema and vomit.

Methods: This was a prospective, cohort study in which we invited emergency medicine faculty and residents to participate. Each participant intubated 2 cadavers (one with simulated pulmonary edema and one with simulated vomit), using CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Thirty emergency medicine providers performed 4 total intubations each in a crossover trial comparing the CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Two intubations were performed with simulated vomit and two with simulated pulmonary edema. The primary outcome was time to successful intubation; and the secondary outcome was proportion of successful intubation.

Results: The median time to successful intubation using the CMAC with inline suction versus traditional suction in the pulmonary edema group was 29s and 30s respectively (p=0.54). In the vomit simulation, the median time to successful intubation was 40s using the CMAC with inline suction and 41s using the CMAC with traditional suction (p=0.70). There were no significant differences in time to successful intubation between the 2 devices. Similarly, the proportions of successful intubation were also not statistically significant between the 2 devices. The proportions of successful intubations using the inline suction were 96.7% and 73.3%, for the pulmonary edema and vomit groups, respectively. Additionally using the handheld suction device, the proportions for the pulmonary edema and vomit group were 100% and 66.7%, respectively.

Conclusion: CMAC with inline suction was no different than CMAC with traditional suction and was associated with no statistically significant differences in median time to intubation or proportion of successful intubations.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Karl Storz CMAC inline suction device.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Vomit simulated fluid.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Pulmonary edema simulated fluid.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Frequency distribution of time to intubation for each simulated media and technique. Time to intubation is noted in 10 second intervals. “Inline Suction” refers to the CMAC with attached suction device and “Traditional Suction” refers to CMAC with detached standard suctioning.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Bair AE, Filbin MR, Kulkarin RG, et al. The failed intubation attempt in the emergency department: analysis of prevalence, rescue techniques and personnel. J of Emerg Med. 2002;23:131–140. - PubMed
    1. Walls RM, Brown CA, Bair AE, et al. Emergency airway management: a multi-center report of 8937 emergency department intubations. J of Emerg Med. 2011;41:347–354. - PubMed
    1. Fogg T, Annesley N, Hitos K, et al. Prospective observational study of the practice of endotracheal intubation in the emergency department of a tertiary hospital in Sydney, Australia. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24:617–624. - PubMed
    1. Taryle DA, Chandler JE, Good JT, et al. Emergency Room Intubations-Complications and Survival. Chest. 1979;75:541–543. - PubMed
    1. Hasegawa K, Shigemitsu K, Hagiwara Y, et al. Association between repeated intubation attempts and adverse events in emergency departments: An analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:749–755. - PubMed

Publication types