Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: a multicentre randomized controlled trial
- PMID: 27106971
- DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew058
Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: a multicentre randomized controlled trial
Abstract
Background: Videolaryngoscopes are aggressively marketed, but independent evaluation in difficult airways is scarce. This multicentre, prospective randomized controlled trial evaluates six videolaryngoscopes in patients with a simulated difficult airway.
Methods: With ethics committee approval and written informed consent, 12 senior anaesthetists intubated the trachea of 720 patients. A cervical collar limited mouth opening and neck movement, making intubation difficult. We evaluated three unchannelled (C-MAC™ D-blade, GlideScope™, and McGrath™) and three channelled videolaryngoscopes (Airtraq™, A.P. Advance™ difficult airway blade, and KingVision™). The primary outcome was first-attempt intubation success rate. Secondary outcomes included overall success rate, laryngeal view, intubation times, and side-effects. The primary hypothesis for every videolaryngoscope was that the 95% confidence interval of first-attempt success rate is ≥90%.
Results: Mouth opening was decreased from 46 (sd 7) to 23 (3) mm with the cervical collar. First-attempt success rates were 98% (McGrath™), 95% (C-MAC™ D-blade), 87% (KingVision™), 85% (GlideScope™ and Airtraq™), and 37% (A.P. Advance™, P<0.01). The 95% confidence interval of first-attempt success rate was >90% only for the McGrath™. Overall success, laryngeal view, and intubation times differed significantly between videolaryngoscopes (all P<0.01). Side-effects were minor.
Conclusions: This trial revealed differences in the performance of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with restricted neck movement and limited mouth opening. In this setting, first-attempt success rates were 85-98%, except for the A.P. Advance™ difficult airway blade. Highest success and lowest tissue trauma rates were achieved by the McGrath™ and C-MAC™ D-blade, highlighting the importance of the videolaryngoscope blade design.
Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: identifier NCT01692535.
Keywords: anaesthetic techniques, laryngoscopy; equipment, airway; intubation, tracheal tube.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Comment in
-
Limitations of videolaryngoscopy.Br J Anaesth. 2016 Aug;117(2):148-50. doi: 10.1093/bja/aew122. Epub 2016 Jun 1. Br J Anaesth. 2016. PMID: 27251753 No abstract available.
-
Videolaryngoscopy and the search for the Holy Grail.Br J Anaesth. 2017 Mar 1;118(3):471-472. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex022. Br J Anaesth. 2017. PMID: 28203746 No abstract available.
-
Videolaryngoscopy: the more I practise, the luckier I get.Br J Anaesth. 2017 Mar 1;118(3):470. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex019. Br J Anaesth. 2017. PMID: 28203755 No abstract available.
-
Videolaryngoscopy is not a panacea for difficult airway management.Br J Anaesth. 2017 Mar 1;118(3):470-471. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex020. Br J Anaesth. 2017. PMID: 28203798 No abstract available.
-
Classification of videolaryngoscopes is crucial.Br J Anaesth. 2017 May 1;118(5):806-807. doi: 10.1093/bja/aex112. Br J Anaesth. 2017. PMID: 28510756 No abstract available.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
