Videolaryngoscopy allows a better view of the pharynx and larynx than classic laryngoscopy

Pilot multicenter study to determine the utility of point-of-care ultrasound to predict difficulty of tracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy with the McGrath™ Mac videolaryngoscope

Background

Clinical airway screening tests used to predict difficulties during airway management have low sensitivity and specificity. Point-of-care airway ultrasound has described measurements related to problems with difficult direct laryngoscopy. Nevertheless, the correlation between ultrasound parameters and videolaryngoscopy has not been published yet. The aim of this multicenter, prospective observational pilot study was to evaluate the applicability of clinical parameters and ultrasound measurements to find potential tracheal intubation difficulties when videolaryngoscopy is used.

Methods

Preoperatively, six clinical airway assessments were performed: (1) modified Mallampati score, (2) thyromental distance, (3) sternomental distance, (4) interincisal distance, (5) upper lip bite test, and (6) neck circumference. Six ultrasound parameters were measured in awake patients: (1) distance from skin to hyoid bone, (2) distance from skin to epiglottis, (3) hyomental distance in neutral head position, (4) hyomental distance in head-extended position, (5) distance from skin to the deepest part of the palate, and (6) sagittal tongue area. And finally, there was one ultrasound measure obtained in anesthetized patients, the compressed sagittal tongue area during videolaryngoscopy. The difficulty for tracheal intubation using a McGrath™ Mac videolaryngoscope, the percentage of glottic opening, and Cormack-Lehane grade were also assessed.

Results

In this cohort of 119 subjects, tongue dimensions, particularly the sagittal tongue area, showed a robust association with increased intubation difficulty using videolaryngoscopy. A multiparametric model combining the following three ultrasound variables in awake patients: (a) the distance from skin to epiglottis, (b) the distance from skin to the deepest part of the palate, and (c) the sagittal tongue area, yielded a sensitivity of 92.3%, specificity of 94.5%, positive predictive value of 82.8%, and negative predictive value of 97.8% (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Point-of-care airway ultrasound emerges as a more useful tool compared to traditional clinical scales to anticipate possible challenges during videolaryngoscopic intubation.

Comparison of Clinical Performance of C-MAC Video Laryngoscope Guided vs Blind Placement of I-Gel® in Paediatric Patients: A Randomized Controlled Open-Label Trial

Objective

Placement of the supraglottic airway devices under direct vision has been shown to decrease the incidence of malposition in adults. This study was designed to compare the clinical performance of C-MAC guided and blind placement of i-gel® in paediatric patients.

Methods

The present prospective, randomized controlled study was conducted on 102 paediatric patients scheduled to undergo elective infraumbilical surgeries under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly divided into group "B" (blind) and group "C" (C-MAC) based on the technique used for placement of i-gel®. The primary objective of the study was to compare the incidence of malposition based on the fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB) score of the glottic view. Oropharyngeal leak pressure (OPLP), hemodynamic parameters, and insertion characteristics (time taken to insert and the number of attempts) were secondary objectives. Categorical data were presented as ratio or percentage and continuous data were presented as mean ± standard deviation or median [95% confidence interval (CI)].

Results

The incidence of malposition (Brimacombe score 1 or 2) was significantly lower in group C compared to group B (7.8% vs 49% respectively) (P < 0.001); implying a relative risk reduction of 2.42 (95% CI 1.72 to 3.40) with C-MAC. On FOB assessment, the median (interquartile range) Brimacombe score was significantly better in group C [4 (4-4)] compared to group B [3 (2-3)] (P < 0.001). The OPLP was significantly higher in group C compared to group B. Other insertion characteristics were comparable in both the study groups.

Conclusion

Compared to blind placement, C-MAC guided placement ensures proper alignment of i-gel® with periglottic structures and proper functioning of i-gel®.

Endotracheal Intubation of Difficult Airways in Emergency Settings: A Guide for Innovators

Over 400,000 Americans are intubated in emergency settings annually, with indications ranging from respiratory failure to airway obstructions to anaphylaxis. About 12.7% of emergency intubations are unsuccessful on the first attempt. Failure to intubate on the first attempt is associated with a higher likelihood of adverse events, including oxygen desaturation, aspiration, trauma to soft tissue, dysrhythmia, hypotension, and cardiac arrest. Difficult airways, as classified on an established clinical scale, are found in up to 30% of emergency department (ED) patients and are a significant contributor to failure to intubate. Difficult intubations have been associated with longer lengths of stay and significantly greater costs than standard intubations. There exists a wide range of airway management devices, both invasive and noninvasive, which are available in the emergency setting to accommodate difficult airways. Yet, first-pass success rates remain variable and leave room for improvement. In this article, we review the disease states most correlated with intubation, the current landscape of emergency airway management technologies, and the market potential for innovation. The aim of this review is to inspire new technologies to assist difficult airway management, given the substantial opportunity for translation due to two key-value signposts of medical innovation: the potential to decrease cost and the potential to improve clinical outcomes.

Assessment of the Possibility of Using the Laryngoscopes Macintosh, McCoy, Miller, Intubrite, VieScope and I-View for Intubation in Simulated Out-of-Hospital Conditions by People without Clinical Experience: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study

The aim of the study was to evaluate the laryngoscopes Macintosh, Miller, McCoy, Intubrite, VieScope and I-View in simulated out-of-hospital conditions when used by people without clinical experience, and to choose the one that, in the case of failure of the first intubation (FI), gives the highest probability of successful second (SI) or third (TI). For FI, the highest success rate (HSR) was observed for I-View and the lowest (LSR) for Macintosh (90% vs. 60%; p < 0.001); for SI, HSR was observed for I-View and LSR for Miller (95% vs. 66,7%; p < 0001); and for TI, HSR was observed for I-View and LSR for Miller, McCoy and VieScope (98.33% vs. 70%; p < 0.001). A significant shortening of intubation time between FI and TI was observed for Macintosh (38.95 (IQR: 30.1-47.025) vs. 32.4 (IQR: 29-39.175), p = 0.0132), McCoy (39.3 (IQR: 31.1-48.15) vs. 28.75 (IQR: 26.475-35.7), p < 0.001), Intubrite (26.4 (IQR: 21.4-32.3) vs. 20.7 (IQR: 18.3-24.45), p < 0.001), and I-View (21 (IQR: 17.375-25.1) vs. 18 (IQR: 15.95-20.5), p < 0.001). According to the respondents, the easiest laryngo- scopes to use were I-View and Intubrite, while the most difficult was Miller. The study shows that I-View and Intubrite are the most useful devices, combining high efficiency with a statistically significant reduction in time between successive attempts.

Predictors of difficult intubation when using a videolaryngoscope with an intermediate-angled blade during the first attempt: a prospective observational study

The curvature of a videolaryngoscope blade has been diversified from the standard macintosh-type to the hyperacute-angle-type, resulting in different performances. We aimed to determine the intubation success rate and identify predictors of difficult intubation when using an intermediate-angled videolaryngoscope in the first attempt of intubation under routine anaesthesia settings. We enrolled 808 patients between 19 and 79 years of age, scheduled for elective surgeries under general anaesthesia with orotracheal intubation from July 2017 to November 2018; patients who were candidates for awake intubation were excluded. We obtained patient demographic data and performed airway evaluation before induction of anaesthesia for elective surgeries. We used the UEScope for tracheal intubation with a hockey stick-shaped malleable stylet. The intubation time was defined as the total duration from the entry of the blade into the oropharynx to the detection of first end-tidal carbon dioxide capnogram; this duration was recorded along with the number of intubation attempts. Difficult intubation was defined as either > 60 s duration for tracheal intubation, or > 1 intubation attempt. The use of the UEScope demonstrated a 99.4% success rate for intubation; however, increased difficulties were observed in patients who were male, obese, had a short thyromental distance, limited mouth opening, and high upper-lip-bite test class. Despite the high intubation success rate using an intermediate-angled videolaryngoscope, we recommend preparing backup plans, considering the increased difficulty in patients with certain preoperative features.Clinical trial number and registry URL: Clinical Trials.gov Identifier: NCT03215823 (Date of registration: 12 July).

Comparison of KingVision videolaryngoscope channelled blade with Tuoren videolaryngoscope non-channelled blade in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by non-anaesthesiologists and experienced anaesthesiologists: A prospective randomised crossover mannequin study

Purpose

A videolaryngoscope has been recommended for intubation in the COVID-19 scenario but the videolaryngoscope providing optimal intubation conditions is not ascertained. We compared KingVision channelled blade with a non-Channelled videolaryngoscope for intubation times in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by both anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologists.

Methods

This prospective randomised cross over mannequin study was conducted in a skill training lab. 25 anaesthesiologists and 25 non-anaesthesiologists donned in standard personal protective equipment performed 100 intubations with KingVision and Tuoren videolaryngoscopes in a mannequin covered with a transparent plastic sheet. The total intubation time, percentage of glottic opening scores, first attempt success rates were assessed.

Results

The mean difference in intubation times in anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologist less with KingVision videolaryngoscope (21.1s; 95% CI 9.6-32.6s vs. 35.9s; 95% CI 24.4-47.4 s; P = 0.001). Percentage of glottic opening score was significantly better with KingVision by non-anaesthesiologists (60; IQR 42.5 to 75 vs. 70; IQR 50 to 100; P = 0.019). KingVision provided superior first attempt success rate in non-anaesthesiologists (84% vs. 61.9%; P = 0.02) and anaesthesiologists (96% vs. 76%; P = 0.12).

Conclusion

KingVision channelled videolaryngoscope provided faster intubation times, glottic views and first attempt success rates in a simulated COVID-19 scenario in manikins and might be preferred over videolaryngoscopes with non-channelled blade. The findings need to be further verified in humans.

Trial registration

ctri.nic.in identifier: REF/2020/05/033338.

Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients-a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscope (VL) compared with direct laryngoscope (DL) could reduce the occurrence of adverse events associated with tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients.

METHODS

The current issue of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (from database inception to October 30, 2018) were searched. The RCTs, quasi-RCTs, observational studies comparing VL and DL for tracheal intubation in emergency or ICU patients and reporting the rates of adverse events were included. The primary outcome was the rate of esophageal intubation (EI). Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible RCT. The ACROBAT-NRSi Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was applied to assess the risk of bias for each eligible observational study.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies (13,117 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis showed a lower rate of EI by using VL (relative risk [RR], 0.24; P < 0.01; high-quality evidence for RCTs and very low-quality evidence for observational studies). Subgroup analyses based on the type of studies, whether a cardiopulmonary resuscitation study, or operators' expertise showed a similar lower rate of EI by using VL compared with DL in all subgroups (P < 0.01) except for experienced operators (RR, 0.44; P = 0.09). There were no significant differences between devices for other adverse events (P > 0.05), except for a lower incidence of hypoxemia when intubation was performed with VL by inexperienced operators (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this analysis, we conclude that compared with DL, VL can reduce the risk of EI during tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients, but does not provide significant benefits on other adverse events associated with tracheal intubation.

Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope be used first line for all oral intubations or only in those with a difficult airway? A review of current literature

The purpose of this study was to review literature that looked into the efficacy of the Glidescope video laryngoscope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope in oral endotracheal intubations. We aimed to answer the question 'Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope laryngoscopes be used as first line intubation aids or only in the difficult airway?' A systematic search of electronic databases was made. The inclusion criteria included: Glidescope, video laryngoscope, and Macintosh laryngoscope in human studies. The study aimed to compare first attempt success rate, glottic view and intubation time in papers dating between 2009 and 2017. Eleven trials with a total of 7,919 patients with both difficult and normal airways were included. The trials showed an improvement in first attempt success rate and glottic view with the Glidescope video laryngoscope especially in those with difficult airways. Overall time to intubate showed no significant differences between the Glidescope video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope although it was identified that with increased training and experience with the Glidescope video laryngoscope, intubation time was reduced. Glidescope video laryngoscopes show advantages over the Macintosh laryngoscopes in obtaining better glottic views in those with difficult airways. However its use is not supported in all routine intubations.

The effect of low-dose rocuronium on rapid tracheal intubation using a video laryngoscope: A randomized double blind controlled study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of rocuronium in low doses on conditions during rapid tracheal intubation using video laryngoscope.

METHODS

Ninety-eight patients undergoing otolaryngologic surgery were randomly divided into 2 groups: group L using 0.3 mg/kg of rocuronium intravenously (n = 49) and group C using 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium (n = 49). Sixty seconds after rocuronium administration, tracheal intubation was performed using a video laryngoscope. The overall intubation condition was evaluated along with specific conditions, including laryngoscopy condition, vocal cord position, and intubation response. Intubation profiles, including Cormack-Lehane grade, 1st attempt success rate, and intubation time, were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall intubation conditions showed a significant difference between group L and group C (P = .003). Although the incidence of vigorous response after tracheal intubation was higher in group L than in group C (P = .022), laryngoscopy condition and vocal cord position were similar between the 2 groups (P = .145 and .070, respectively). Intubation profiles showed no differences between the 2 groups. The frequency and amount of additional rocuronium administration during surgery were also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Low-dose rocuronium provided significantly worse overall intubation conditions compared to the conventional dose of rocuronium for rapid tracheal intubation. However, when using a video laryngoscope, it may provide clinically acceptable laryngeal muscle relaxation.

Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

There is significant controversy regarding the influence of video laryngoscopy on the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscopy could improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from database inception until 15 February 2017. Only randomized controlled trials comparing video and direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in emergency department, intensive care unit, and prehospital settings were selected. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible study. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to assess the quality of evidence for all outcomes.

Results

Twelve studies (2583 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis did not show an improved first-attempt success rate using video laryngoscopy (relative risk [RR], 0.93; P = 0.28; low-quality evidence). There was significant heterogeneity among studies (I² = 91%). Subgroup analyses showed that, in the prehospital setting, video laryngoscopy decreased the first-attempt success rate (RR, 0.57; P < 0.01; high-quality evidence) and overall success rate (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48–0.69; moderate-quality evidence) by experienced operators, whereas in the in-hospital setting, no significant difference between two devices was identified for the first-attempt success rate (RR, 1.06; P = 0.14; moderate-quality evidence), regardless of the experience of the operators or the types of video laryngoscopes used (P > 0.05), although a slightly higher overall success rate was shown (RR, 1.11; P = 0.03; moderate-quality evidence). There were no differences between devices for other outcomes (P > 0.05), except for a lower rate of esophageal intubation (P = 0.01) and a higher rate of Cormack and Lehane grade 1 (P < 0.01) when using video laryngoscopy.

Conclusions

On the basis of the results of this study, we conclude that, compared with direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy does not improve intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. Prehospital intubation is even worsened by use of video laryngoscopy when performed by experienced operators.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1885-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Use of the GlideScope Ranger Video Laryngoscope for Emergency Intubation in the Prehospital Setting: A Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess whether the GlideScope Ranger video laryngoscope may be a reliable alternative to direct laryngoscopy in the prehospital setting.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective, randomized, control trial with patient recruitment over 18 months.

SETTING

Four study centers operating physician-staffed rescue helicopters or ground units in Austria and Norway.

PATIENTS

Adult emergency patients requiring endotracheal intubation.

INTERVENTIONS

Airway management strictly following a prehospital algorithm. First and second intubation attempt employing GlideScope or direct laryngoscopy as randomized; third attempt crossover. After three failed intubation attempts, immediate use of an extraglottic airway device.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 326 patients were enrolled. Success rate with the GlideScope (n = 168) versus direct laryngoscopy (n = 158) group was 61.9% (104/168) versus 96.2% (152/158), respectively (p < 0.001). The main reasons for failed GlideScope intubation were failure to advance the tube into the larynx or trachea (26/168 vs 0/158; p < 0.001) and/or impaired sight due to blood or fluids (21/168 vs 3/158; p < 0.001). When GlideScope intubation failed, direct laryngoscopy was successful in 61 of 64 patients (95.3%), whereas GlideScope enabled intubation in four of six cases (66.7%) where direct laryngoscopy failed (p = 0.055). In addition, GlideScope was prone to impaired visualization of the monitor because of ambient light (29/168; 17.3%). There was no correlation between success rates and body mass index, age, indication for airway management, or experience of the physicians, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Video laryngoscopy is an established tool in difficult airway management, but our results shed light on the specific problems in the emergency medical service setting. Prehospital use of the GlideScope was associated with some major problems, thus resulting in a lower intubation success rate when compared with direct laryngoscopy.

Comparison of VividTrac®, Airtraq®, King Vision®, Macintosh Laryngoscope and a Custom-Made Videolaryngoscope for difficult and normal airways in mannequins by novices

BACKGROUND

Direct laryngoscopy remains the gold standard for endotracheal intubation and is preferred by experienced operators. However, an increasing number of reports currently support videolaryngoscopy, particularly for novice users. The widespread use of videolaryngoscopy may be limited due to financial limitations, especially in low-income countries. Therefore, affordable single-use scopes are now becoming increasingly popular. We sought to compare these new scopes with direct laryngoscopes and the previously tested videolaryngoscopes in mannequins by novices.

METHODS

Fifty medical students were recruited to serve as novice users. Following brief, standardized training, students were asked to execute endotracheal intubation with each of the devices, including the Airtraq®, a custom-made videolaryngoscope, the King Vision®, the Macintosh laryngoscope and the VividTrac®, on an airway trainer (Laerdal Airway Management Trainer®) in normal and difficult airway scenarios. We evaluated the time to and the proportion of successful intubation, the best view of the glottis, esophageal intubation, dental trauma and user satisfaction.

RESULTS

We observed no differences in esophageal intubation. However, intubation-related times, the view of the glottis and operator satisfaction were significantly better throughout the study with the commercial videolaryngoscopes. In comparison, the custom-made videolaryngoscope performance proved to be similar to that of the Macintosh laryngoscope. The VividTrac® performance was similar (P > 0.05) or significantly better than that of the King Vision® in both scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Based upon our results, the Airtraq®, King Vision® and VividTrac® were superior to the Macintosh laryngscope in both normal and difficult airway scencarios for novice users. In particular, our study is the first to report that the VividTrac® shows promise for further clinical evaluation.

Randomized Trial of Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of video laryngoscopy on the rate of endotracheal intubation on first laryngoscopy attempt among critically ill adults.

DESIGN

A randomized, parallel-group, pragmatic trial of video compared with direct laryngoscopy for 150 adults undergoing endotracheal intubation by Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine fellows.

SETTING

Medical ICU in a tertiary, academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Critically ill patients 18 years old or older.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to video or direct laryngoscopy for the first attempt at endotracheal intubation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients assigned to video (n = 74) and direct (n = 76) laryngoscopy were similar at baseline. Despite better glottic visualization with video laryngoscopy, there was no difference in the primary outcome of intubation on the first laryngoscopy attempt (video 68.9% vs direct 65.8%; p = 0.68) in unadjusted analyses or after adjustment for the operator's previous experience with the assigned device (odds ratio for video laryngoscopy on intubation on first attempt 2.02; 95% CI, 0.82-5.02, p = 0.12). Secondary outcomes of time to intubation, lowest arterial oxygen saturation, complications, and in-hospital mortality were not different between video and direct laryngoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill adults undergoing endotracheal intubation, video laryngoscopy improves glottic visualization but does not appear to increase procedural success or decrease complications.

Comparing McGRATH® MAC, C-MAC®, and Macintosh Laryngoscopes Operated by Medical Students: A Randomized, Crossover, Manikin Study

We hypothesized that the McGRATH MAC would decrease the time of intubation compared to C-MAC for novices. Thirty-nine medical students who had used the Macintosh blade to intubate a manikin fewer than 3 times were recruited. The participants performed sequential intubations on the manikin in two simulated settings that included a normal airway and a difficult airway (tongue edema). The intubation time, success rate of intubation, Cormack-Lehane grade at laryngoscopy, and difficulty using the device were recorded. Each participant was asked to identify the device that was most useful. The intubation time decreased significantly and by a similar amount to the McGRATH MAC and C-MAC compared to the Macintosh blade (P < 0.001 and P = 0.017, resp.). In the difficult airway, the intubation times were similar among the three devices. The McGRATH MAC and C-MAC significantly increased the success rate of intubation, improved the Cormack-Lehane grade, and decreased the difficulty score compared to the Macintosh blade in both airway settings. The majority of participants selected the McGRATH MAC as the most useful device. The McGRATH MAC and C-MAC may offer similar benefits for intubation compared to the Macintosh blade in normal and difficult airway situations.

Encountering unexpected difficult airway: relationship with the intubation difficulty scale

Background

An unexpected difficult intubation can be very challenging and if it is not managed properly, it may expose the encountered patient to significant risks. The intubation difficulty scale (IDS) has been used as a validated method to evaluate a global degree of intubation difficulty. The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevalence and characteristics of unexpected difficult intubation using the IDS.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed 951 patients undergoing elective surgery in a single medical center. Patients expected to have a difficult intubation or who had history of difficult intubation were excluded. Each patient was assessed by the IDS scoring system with seven variables. Total prevalence of difficult intubation and the contributing individual factors were further analyzed.

Results

For the 951 patients, the difficult intubation cases presenting IDS > 5 was 5.8% of total cases (n = 55). The prevalence of Cormack-Lehane Grade 3 or 4 was 16.2% (n = 154). Most of the difficult intubation cases were managed by simple additional maneuvers and techniques such as stylet application, additional lifting force and laryngeal pressure.

Conclusions

Unexpected difficult airway was present in 5.8% of patients and most was managed effectively. Among the components of IDS, the Cormack-Lehane grade was most sensitive for predicting difficult intubation.

Comparison of McGrath Series 3 and Macintosh Laryngoscopes for Tracheal Intubation in Patients With Normal Airway by Inexperienced Anesthetists: A Randomized Study

Difficult and failed intubations account for the major causes of morbidity and mortality in current anesthetic practice. Several devices including McGrath Series 3 videolaryngoscope are available which may facilitate tracheal intubation by improving view of the larynx compared with Macintosh blade laryngoscopy. But no studies demonstrate whether McGrath Series 3 performs better than Macintosh laryngoscope in normal airway intubations by inexperienced anesthetists so far. We therefore designed this randomized controlled study to compare McGrath with Macintosh in routine tracheal intubation performed by inexperienced anesthetists.In total, 180 adult patients with normal-appearing airways requiring orotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to be intubated by 9 inexperienced anesthetists with McGrath or Macintosh. The primary outcome was time to intubation. Ease of intubation was assessed by a 5-point ordinal scale. Intubation attempts/failures, best laryngoscopy view using the Cormack-Lehane grade, associated complications and hemodynamic changes during intubation were recorded.We found that there was no significant difference between McGrath and Macintosh in the median time to intubation (P = 0.46); the Cormack-Lehane views attained using McGrath were superior (P < 0.001); the difference of ease of intubation was statistically significant (P = 0.01). No serious trauma occurred in both groups. And there was statistically significant difference in the systolic blood pressure changes between 2 groups (P < 0.05).We demonstrated that in orotracheal intubation in patients with normal airway by inexperienced anesthetists, McGrath compared with the Macintosh allows superior glottis views, greater ease of intubation, less complications, and hemodynamic changes with noninferior intubation time. And it remained a potential selection for inexperienced anesthetists in uncomplicated intubation.

Radical evolution: the 2015 Difficult Airway Society guidelines for managing unanticipated difficult or failed tracheal intubation

There is little doubt that these guidelines incorporate advances made in airway management since 2004. They will change day-to-day practice of anaesthesia, as outlined above, from pre-operative airway assessment, to integrating the WHO team briefing, to the use and provision of equipment and drugs, and the recording of information on the anaesthesia chart. They will inform the later analysis of any critical airway incidents, especially as documentation and postoperative management are addressed, and they will encourage training in a range of techniques. Taken together, not quite a revolution but certainly a very 'radical evolution'.Assessment of the utility of the new guidelines should consider if they can be used as tools to enhance knowledge and training, or in addition as a prosthesis to bridge the gap between the requirements of and our abilities during emergencies. Formal testing may reveal which aspects of their design, complex as it is, may distract from, rather than enhance, airway management during crises.All guidelines represent a standard of care or a normative approach to a clinical problem. As such, they not only help guide clinicians, but they also provide the broader community with the opportunity to improve standards, to ensure equipment is available, and that training for the skills and processes required are in place to ensure successful adoption.

Tracheal intubation in patients with anticipated difficult airway using Boedeker intubation forceps and McGrath videolaryngoscope

BACKGROUND

Videolaryngoscopes with sharp angulated blades improve the view of the vocal cords but this does not necessarily result in higher success rates of intubation The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of using Boedeker intubation forceps in conjunction with McGrath Series 5 Videolaryngoscope (MVL) in patients with predictors for difficult intubation.

METHODS

The study was conducted at the Department of Anaesthesia, Copenhagen University Hospital from September to December 2013. Patients with one or more predictors of difficult intubation scheduled for general anaesthesia were assessed for eligibility. Patients were intubated using Boedeker intubation forceps and MVL. The primary endpoint was time to intubation. The secondary endpoints were intubation success rate, number of intubation attempts, intubation conditions and post-operative hoarseness.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were assessed for eligibility, and 25 patients were included in the study with a median SARI score of 3 (IQR 3-4). Twenty-two (88%, 95% confidence interval [74-100%]) of the patients were successfully intubated by the method with a median time to intubation of 115 s (IQR 78-247). Steering and advancement of the tube were reported as acceptable in 21 (84%) and 22 cases (88%), respectively, and excellent in 10 cases (45%) for both measures. Ten cases (40%) were intubated on the first attempt. There were three cases (12%) of failed intubation; in these cases, successful intubation was obtained by using a styletted tube.

CONCLUSION(S)

Most patients with anticipated difficult intubation can be successfully intubated with Boedeker intubation forceps and MVL. However, endotracheal tube placement failed in 3/25 patients despite a good laryngeal view.

Pioneers of Laryngoscopy: Indirect, Direct and Video Laryngoscopy

Airway management is one of the core skills of the anaesthetist and various techniques of airway management have developed over many years. Initially, the only view of the glottis that could be obtained was an indirect view (indirect laryngoscopy). Late in the 19th century, a direct view of the glottis was obtained via various direct laryngoscopes. Currently, in the early 21st century, there has been a return to indirect laryngoscopy via videolaryngoscopy using a videolaryngoscope. The aim of this paper is to give a historical overview of the development of both direct and indirect laryngoscopy.

Management of the anticipated and unanticipated difficult airway in anesthesia outside the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The number of diagnostic and interventional procedures outside the operating room has dramatically increased over the last years. However, providing well tolerated anesthesia with the same standard of care in these locations is often challenging to the anesthesiologist. The remote locations include different organizational aspects and hazards. Airway management in general is still confronted with scenarios of difficult intubation and ventilation and often leads to significant morbidity and mortality. Continuous awareness of the potential complications is urged when providing anesthesia for remote procedures.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent studies have poorly addressed the issue of airway management by trained anesthesiologists outside the operating room. The majority of evidence is provided in the field of emergency medicine and intensive care settings. However, when dealing with difficult airway management in the remote setting, careful assessment and preparation is even more important than in the operating room. New evidence concerning prediction of ventilation and intubation must be incorporated in algorithms of airway management. Different anesthetic regimens using remifentanil and avoiding the use of neuromuscular blockers have to be carefully considered since they might change the scenario of intubation conditions. The new era of video laryngoscopes offers important potential to increase the tools for airway management. These new devices have the perfect design to be incorporated in remote settings. However, studies mainly focus on the emergency department and ICU. Also, there is currently a lack of consensus among professionals about their use and the large number of different devices seems to avoid careful comparisons.

SUMMARY

Airway management outside the operating room is challenging and needs the implementation of algorithms including the new airway devices. The recent update of the practice guidelines about difficult airway management of the American Society of Anesthesiologists remains the standard reference guide.