A comparison of the McGrath videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation in the operating theatre: a multicentre randomised controlled trial

Abstract

Aspiration of gastric contents is a recognised complication during all phases of anaesthesia. The risk of this event becomes more likely with repeated attempts at tracheal intubation. There is a lack of clinical data on the effectiveness of videolaryngoscopy relative to direct laryngoscopy rapid sequence intubation in the operating theatre. We hypothesised that the use of a videolaryngoscope during rapid sequence intubation would be associated with a higher first pass tracheal intubation success rate than conventional direct laryngoscopy. In this multicentre randomised controlled trial, 1000 adult patients requiring tracheal intubation for elective, urgent or emergency surgery were allocated randomly to airway management using a McGrath™ MAC videolaryngoscope (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA) or direct laryngoscopy. Both techniques used a Macintosh blade. First-pass tracheal intubation success was higher in patients allocated to the McGrath group (470/500, 94%) compared with those allocated to the direct laryngoscopy group (358/500, 71.6%), odds ratio (95%CI) 1.31 (1.23-1.39); p < 0.001. This advantage was observed in both trainees and consultants. Cormack and Lehane grade ≥ 3 view occurred less frequently in patients allocated to the McGrath group compared with those allocated to the direct laryngoscopy group (5/500, 1% vs. 94/500, 19%, respectively; p < 0.001). Tracheal intubation with a McGrath videolaryngoscope was associated with a lower rate of adverse events compared with direct laryngoscopy (13/500, 2.6% vs. 61/500, 12.2%, respectively; p < 0.001). These findings suggest that the McGrath videolaryngoscope is superior to a conventional direct laryngoscope for rapid sequence intubation in the operating theatre.

Keywords: airway management; laryngoscopy; rapid sequence induction; tracheal intubation; videolaryngoscopy.