Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.4103/sja.sja_1058_20 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.4103/sja.sja_1058_20 34188630!8191259!34188630     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=34188630&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215       Saudi+J+Anaesth 2021 ; 15 (2): 131-136 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=34188630|t=2021. Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novice users wearing face protective gear: A randomized crossover trial |pdf=|usr=}}{{34188630}} gab.com Text Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novice users wearing face protective gear: A randomized crossover trial JO: Saudi J Anaesth http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34188630 #FOAvip INTRODUCTION: Intubation in COVID patients is challenging. Various guidelines suggest the use of video-laryngoscope (VL) as the first device to aid intubation in a COVID patient. The best VL to facilitate intubation in such a setting especially by novices is not ascertained. We compared intubation characteristics by two VL's (McGrath-MAC and C-MAC) for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novices. METHODOLOGY: This prospective randomized manikin-based crossover study was done in thirty medical professionals with no previous experience of intubation with VL. All participants were trained on Laerdel airway management trainer and were allowed 5 practice sessions with each scope with an intubation box while wearing face protective personal protective equipment (PPE). Participants were randomized into two groups of 15 each, one group performed the intubation first with McGrath and the other with C-MAC before crossing over. RESULTS: The mean (S. D.) time to intubation was similar with both McGrath-VL and CMAC VL [31.33 (14.72) s vs 26.47 (8.5) s, P = (p-0.063)]. POGO score [mean (S. D.)] was better with CMAC [81.33 (16.24) vs 60.33 (14.73), p-0.00. The majority of the users preferred C-MAC VL for intubation (93.33%). The incidence of failed intubation and multiple attempts at intubating were similar with the two scopes. CONCLUSION: The time to intubation was similar with both VL's but the majority of novices preferred CMAC probably due to a bigger screen that helped them to have a better view of glottis in the COVID simulated mannequin. Twit Text FOAVip Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novice users wearing face protective gear: A randomized crossover trial ????Saudi J Anaesth http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34188630 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=34188630 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|34188630}}</ref> Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novice users wearing face protective gear: A randomized crossover trial #MMPMID34188630 Vig S; Bhan S; Gupta N; Meena JK; Bhatnagar S Saudi J Anaesth 2021[Apr]; 15 (2): 131-136 PMID34188630show ga INTRODUCTION: Intubation in COVID patients is challenging. Various guidelines suggest the use of video-laryngoscope (VL) as the first device to aid intubation in a COVID patient. The best VL to facilitate intubation in such a setting especially by novices is not ascertained. We compared intubation characteristics by two VL's (McGrath-MAC and C-MAC) for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novices. METHODOLOGY: This prospective randomized manikin-based crossover study was done in thirty medical professionals with no previous experience of intubation with VL. All participants were trained on Laerdel airway management trainer and were allowed 5 practice sessions with each scope with an intubation box while wearing face protective personal protective equipment (PPE). Participants were randomized into two groups of 15 each, one group performed the intubation first with McGrath and the other with C-MAC before crossing over. RESULTS: The mean (S. D.) time to intubation was similar with both McGrath-VL and CMAC VL [31.33 (14.72) s vs 26.47 (8.5) s, P = (p-0.063)]. POGO score [mean (S. D.)] was better with CMAC [81.33 (16.24) vs 60.33 (14.73), p-0.00. The majority of the users preferred C-MAC VL for intubation (93.33%). The incidence of failed intubation and multiple attempts at intubating were similar with the two scopes. CONCLUSION: The time to intubation was similar with both VL's but the majority of novices preferred CMAC probably due to a bigger screen that helped them to have a better view of glottis in the COVID simulated mannequin. ?Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubatio(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing