Early endotracheal intubation improves neurological outcomes in cardiopulmonary resuscitation, although cardiopulmonary resuscitation is initially carried out by personnel with limited experience in a significant proportion of cases. Videolaryngoscopes might decrease the number of attempts and time needed, especially among novices. We sought to compare videolaryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopes in simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation scenarios. Forty-four medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students executed endotracheal intubation with the King Vision^®, Macintosh and VividTrac^® laryngoscopes, on a cardiopulmonary resuscitation trainer in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma and user satisfaction. In the normal airway scenario, significantly shorter intubation times were achieved using the King Vision^® than the Macintosh laryngoscope. In the difficult airway scenario, we found that the VividTrac^® was superior to the King Vision^® and Macintosh laryngoscopes in the laryngoscopy time. In both scenarios, we noted no difference in the first-attempt success rate, but the best view of the glottis and dental trauma, esophageal intubation and bougie use were more frequent with the Macintosh laryngoscope than with the videolaryngoscopes. The shortest tube insertion times were achieved using the King Vision^® in both scenarios. All providers achieved successful intubation within three attempts, but we found no device superior in any of our scenarios regarding the first-attempt success rate. The King Vision^® was superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope in the intubation time in the normal airway scenario and noninferior in the difficult airway scenario for novice users. We noted significantly less esophageal intubation using the videolaryngoscopes than using the Macintosh laryngoscope in both scenarios. Based on our results, the KingVision^® might be recommended over the VividTrac^® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for further evaluation.

Background/Objectives: In this study, we aimed to compare the predictive power of non-conventional (neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio—NLR; platelet/lymphocyte ratio—PLR) and conventional markers (C-reactive protein—CRP; procalcitonin—PCT; interleukin-6—IL-6) in terms of disease progression and mortality in severe SARS-CoV-2 patients. Methods: In this prospective observatory study, blood samples were collected daily, focusing on the established inflammatory markers. Critically ill COVID-19 patients who required ICU admission were included. Patient treatment followed established COVID-19 protocols, and the data analysis was performed using SPSS with non-normal distribution methods. The study cohort primarily included patients infected with the delta variant. Results: A mortality rate of 76.6% was observed among 167 patients during the study period. Significant differences in conventional and non-conventional markers between survivor and non-survivor groups were observed. The PCT levels were significantly elevated (p < 0.005) in the deceased group. Among the non-conventional markers, the NLR was consistently higher in non-survivors and emerged as a significant predictor of mortality, whereas the PLR was not elevated among the non-survivors. ROC analyses indicated that PCT and the NLR were the markers with the highest predictive power for mortality. The multivariate logistic regression analysis identified NLR, PCT, CRP, and IL-6 as significant predictors of mortality across different days. The NLR showed a consistent, though not always statistically significant, association with increased mortality risk, particularly on Days 2 and 5. Conclusions: The NLR’s accessibility and simplicity of determination make it a valuable and practical tool for monitoring inflammatory processes in viral infections. Our findings suggest that incorporating NLR analysis into routine clinical practice could enhance the early identification of high-risk patients, thereby improving patient management and outcomes.

Background: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a cornerstone of airway management. The gold standard device for ETI is still the direct laryngoscope (DL). However, video laryngoscopes (VLs) are now also widely available and have several proven advantages. The VL technique has been included in the major airway management guidelines. During the COVID-19 pandemic, supply chain disruption has raised demand for 3D-printed medical equipment, including 3D-printed VLs. However, studies on performance are only sparsely available; thus, we aimed to compare 3D-printed VLs to the DL and other VLs made with conventional manufacturing technology. Methods: Forty-eight medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students executed ETI with the DL, the King Vision^® (KV), the VividTrac^® (VT), the AirAngel Blade^® (AAB), and a custom-made 3D-printed VL (3DVL) on the Laerdal^® airway management trainer in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma, and user satisfaction. Results: The KV and VT are proved to be superior (p < 0.05) to the DL in both scenarios. The 3DVL’s performance was similar (p > 0.05) or significantly better than that of the DL and mainly non-inferior (p > 0.05) compared to the KV and VT in both scenarios. Regardless of the scenario, the AAB proved to be inferior (p < 0.05) even to the DL in the majority of the variables. The differences between the devices were more pronounced in the difficult airway scenario. The user satisfaction scores were in concordance with the aforementioned performance of the scopes. Conclusions: Based upon our results, we cannot recommend the AAB over the DL, KV, or VT. However, as the 3DVL showed, 3D printing indeed can provide useful or even superior VLs, but prior to clinical use, meticulous evaluation might be recommended.