[Comparison of five video laryngoscopes and conventional direct laryngoscopy : Investigations on simple and simulated difficult airways on the intubation trainer]

Abstract

Introduction: Securing the airway with a tracheal tube is essential in emergency situations, in the intensive care setting as well as during anesthesia for surgery and other interventions. Current methods of airway assessment are poor screening tests for predicting difficult direct laryngoscopy due to a generally low positive predictive value; therefore, successful endotracheal intubation requires a high level of expertise, regular training and practice and sometimes additional tools. Currently, several video laryngoscopes (VL) with different designs are commercially available and have been investigated in a wide variety of settings. To our knowledge there is no prospective study evaluating and comparing performance among these three groups of VL; therefore, the aim of this study was to compare performance of five VL and conventional direct laryngoscopy in an intubation manikin model, both in a normal and simulated difficult intubation setting.

Methods: In this study 10 residents, 12 senior staff physicians and 5 anesthesia nurses, all experienced in conventional direct laryngoscopy and inexperienced with VL underwent theoretical and hands-on training with all VL lasting 60 min. Afterwards participants performed intubation with all 5 VL and conventional direct laryngoscopy in a randomized sequence using an intubation manikin with normal intubation settings. Thereafter participants performed intubation in a simulated difficult intubation setting using the same intubation manikin with a neck collar to immobilize the cervical spine. In this study, the C-MAC(®) with Macintosh blade size 3, GlideScope(®) size 3, McGrath(®) series 5, King Vision(®) and Airtraq(®) size 2 were used. Time to intubation served as primary outcome and time to glottis visualization, number of intubation attempts, success rate and subjective evaluation of difficulty served as secondary outcomes.

Results: In the normal intubation setting, time to intubation ranged from 16.0 s (conventional direct laryngoscopy) to 34.3 s (McGrath). GlideScope and conventional direct laryngoscopy were successful in 100 % followed by C-MAC (96.7 %), Airtraq (88.9 %), King Vision (77.8 %) and McGrath VL (44.4 %). In the simulated difficult intubation setting, time to intubation ranged between 20.3 s (Airtraq) and 26.7 s (McGrath). Success rate with C-MAC was 100 %, followed by GlideScope (96.7 %), Airtraq (85.2 %), conventional direct laryngoscopy (85.2 %), King Vision (81.5 %) and McGrath VL (70.4 %).

Conclusion: In the manikin with normal intubation setting, conventional direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh blade was convincing and superior to any VL used in this study. During simulated difficult intubation, a blade with video transmission, such as C-MAC and the GlideScope were superior compared to conventional direct laryngoscopy and any other VL tested.