Dataset Information

Comparison of Glidescope Core, C-MAC Miller and conventional Miller laryngoscope for difficult airway management by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience in a simulated Pierre Robin sequence: A randomized crossover manikin study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Video laryngoscopy is an effective tool in the management of difficult pediatric airway. However, evidence to guide the choice of the most appropriate video laryngoscope (VL) for airway management in pediatric patients with Pierre Robin syndrome (PRS) is insufficient. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the Glidescope® Core™ with a hyperangulated blade, the C-MAC® with a nonangulated Miller blade (C-MAC® Miller) and a conventional Miller laryngoscope when used by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience in simulated Pierre Robin sequence.

Methods

Forty-three anesthetists with limited experience and forty-three anesthetists with extensive experience participated in our randomized crossover manikin trial. Each performed endotracheal intubation with the Glidescope® Core™ with a hyperangulated blade, the C-MAC® with a Miller blade and the conventional Miller laryngoscope. "Time to intubate" was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were "time to vocal cords", "time to ventilate", overall success rate, number of intubation attempts and optimization maneuvers, Cormack-Lehane score, severity of dental trauma and subjective impressions.

Results

Both hyperangulated and nonangulated VLs provided superior intubation conditions. The Glidescope® Core™ enabled the best glottic view, caused the least dental trauma and significantly decreased the "time to vocal cords". However, the failure rate of intubation was 14% with the Glidescope® Core™, 4.7% with the Miller laryngoscope and only 2.3% with the C-MAC® Miller when used by anesthetists with extensive previous experience. In addition, the "time to intubate", the "time to ventilate" and the number of optimization maneuvers were significantly increased using the Glidescope® Core™. In the hands of anesthetists with limited previous experience, the failure rate was 11.6% with the Glidescope® Core™ and 7% with the Miller laryngoscope. Using the C-MAC® Miller, the overall success rate increased to 100%. No differences in the "time to intubate" or "time to ventilate" were observed.

Conclusions

The nonangulated C-MAC® Miller facilitated correct placement of the endotracheal tube and showed the highest overall success rate. Our results therefore suggest that the C-MAC® Miller could be beneficial and may contribute to increased safety in the airway management of infants with PRS when used by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience.

SUBMITTER: Moritz A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8062059 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Difficult airways can be managed with a range of devices, with video laryngoscopes (VLs) being the most common. The C-MAC® Video-Stylet (VS; Karl-Storz Germany), a hybrid between a flexible and a rigid intubation endoscope, has been recently introduced. The aim of this study is to investigate the performance of the VS compared to a VL (C-MAC Macintosh blade, Karl-Storz Germany) with regards to the learning curve for each device and its ability to manage a simulated difficult airway manikin. This is a single-center, prospective, randomized, crossover study involving twenty-one anesthesia residents performing intubations on a Bill 1™ (VBM, Germany) airway manikin model. After a standardized introduction, six randomized attempts with VL and VS were performed on the manikin. This was followed by intubation in a simulated difficult airway (cervical collar and inflated tongue) with both devices in a randomized fashion. The primary end-point of this study was the total time to intubation. All continuous variables were expressed as the median [interquartile range] and analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test. A 2-way ANOVA with Bonferroni's post hoc test was used to compare both devices at each trial. All reported p values are two sided. The median total time to intubation on a simulated difficult airway was faster with the VS compared to VL (17 [13.5-25] sec vs 23 [18.5-26.5] sec, respectively; 95% CI; P = 0.031). Additionally, on a normal airway manikin, the VS has a comparable learning curve to the VL. In this manikin-based study, the novel VS was comparable to the VL in terms of learning curve in a normal airway. In a simulated difficult airway, the total time to intubation, though likely not clinically relevant, was faster with the VS to the VL. However, given the above findings, this study justifies further human clinical trials with the VS to see if similar benefits-faster time to intubation and similar learning curve to VL-are replicated clinically.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In pre-hospital emergency care, video laryngoscopes (VLs) with disposable blades are preferably used due to hygienic reasons. However, there is limited existing data on the use of VLs with disposable blades by emergency medical staff. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of four different VLs with disposable blades and the conventional standard Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by anesthetists with extensive previous experience and paramedics with little previous experience in endotracheal intubation (ETI) in a simulated difficult airway. METHODS:Fifty-eight anesthetists and fifty-four paramedics participated in our randomized crossover manikin trial. Each performed ETI with the new Glidescope® Go™, the Dahlhausen VL, the King Vision™, the I-View™ and the Macintosh laryngoscope. "Time to intubate" was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints were "time to vocal cords", "time to ventilate", overall success rate, number of intubation attempts and optimization maneuvers, Cormack-Lehane score, severity of dental compression and subjective impressions. RESULTS:The Glidescope® Go™, the Dahlhausen VL and the King Vision™ provided superior intubation conditions in both groups without affecting the number of intubation attempts or the time required for successful intubation. When used by anesthetists with extensive experience in ETI, the use of VLs did not affect the overall success rate. In the hands of paramedics with little previous experience in ETI, the failure rate with the Macintosh laryngoscope (14.8%) decreased to 3.7% using the Glidescope® Go™ and the Dahlhausen VL. Despite the advantages of hyperangulated video laryngoscopes, the I-View™ performed worst. CONCLUSIONS:VLs with hyperangulated blades facilitated ETI in both groups and decreased the failure rate by an absolute 11.1% when used by paramedics with little previous experience in ETI. Our results therefore suggest that hyperangulated VLs could be beneficial and might be the method of choice in comparable settings, especially for emergency medical staff with less experience in ETI.

Project description:BACKGROUND:King Vision and McGrath MAC video laryngoscopes (VLs) are increasingly used. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of nasotracheal intubation in patients with predicted difficult intubations using non-channeled King Vision VL, McGrath MAC VL or Macintosh laryngoscope by experienced intubators. METHODS:Ninety nine ASA I or II adult patients, scheduled for oral maxillofacial surgeries with El-Ganzouri risk index 1-7 were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to intubate with one of three laryngoscopes (non-channeled King Vision, McGrath MAC and Macintosh). The intubators were experienced with more than 100 successful nasotracheal intubations using each device. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes included first success rate, time required for viewing the glottis, Cormack-Lehane grade of glottis view, the number of assist maneuvers, hemodynamic responses, the subjective evaluating of sensations of performances and associated complications. RESULTS:The intubation time of King Vision and McGrath group was comparable (37.6?±?7.3?s vs. 35.4?±?8.8?s) and both were shorter than Macintosh group (46.8?±?10.4?s, p?<?0.001). Both King Vision and McGrath groups had a 100% first attempt success rate, significantly higher than Macintosh group (85%, p?<?0.05). The laryngoscopy time was comparable between King Vision and McGrath group (16.7?±?5.5?s vs. 15.6?±?6.3?s) and was shorter than Macintosh group (22.8?±?7.2?s, p?<?0.05) also. Compared with Macintosh laryngoscope, Glottis view was obviously improved when exposed with either non-channeled King Vision or McGrath MAC VL (p?<?0.001), and assist maneuvers required were reduced (p?<?0.001). The maximum fluctuations of MAP were significantly attenuated in VL groups (47.7?±?12.5?mmHg and 45.1?±?10.3?mmHg vs. 54.9?±?10.2?mmHg, p?<?0.05 and p?<?0.01). Most device insertions were graded as excellent in McGrath group, followed by Macintosh and King Vision group (p?=?0.0014). The tube advancements were easier in VLs compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (p?<?0.001). Sore throat was found more frequent in Macintosh group compared with King Vision group (p?<?0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Non-channeled King Vision and McGrath MAC VLs were comparable and both devices facilitated nasotracheal intubation in managing predicted difficult intubations compared with Macintosh laryngoscope. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials registration number NCT03126344 . Registered on April 24, 2017.

Project description:BackgroundEndotracheal intubation (ETI) can be challenging, especially in life-threatening situations such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Videolaryngoscopes aim to ease ETI, but effort is still widely discussed. This study intended to investigate 2 different airway devices regarding the success rate of ETI during ongoing chest compressions.MethodsThis randomized, cross-over, multi-center manikin trial included 85 experienced paramedics actively working in the emergency medicine service. After a standardized training session, all paramedics underwent 3 airway scenarios using both, direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh blade and videolaryngoscope (the UEScope): normal airway without chest compressions, normal airway with uninterrupted chest compressions, and difficult airway with uninterrupted chest compressions. The primary outcome was successful ETI, defined as successful placement of the endotracheal tube within the manikin's trachea. Secondary outcomes were number of intubation attempts, time to successful ETI, time to best glottis view, best percent of glottic opening, best glottic view score (Cormack and Lehane), occurrence of dental trauma, ease of use, and willing to reuse in real-life situations.ResultsThe UEScope provided a better glottis visualization, and higher first pass intubation success rate compared to direct laryngoscopy in all 3 scenarios. The overall intubation success was higher, and the intubation time was shorter with the UEScope in scenario B and scenario C, but was comparable in scenario A. Dental compression occurred less often using the UEScope and paramedics rated intubation using the UEScope easier compared to direct laryngoscopy in all 3 airway scenarios.ConclusionIn simulated CPR scenarios, intubation with the UEScope resulted in a better glottis visualization, a higher intubation success, and a shorter intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). Moreover, in situations where the airway is difficult for ETI especially by the paramedic, the UEScope would be a better choice than the MAC. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in real-life patients.