Comparison of King Vision video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial / Comparação entre o videolaringoscópio King Vision e o laringoscópio Macintosh: um ensaio clínico prospectivo randomizado e controlado

Abstract Background and objectives We compared the efficiency of the King Vision video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by experienced anesthesiologists on adult patients with varying intubating conditions, in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods A total of 388 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, scheduled for general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Each patient was intubated with both laryngoscopes successively, in a randomized order. Intubation success rate, time to best glottic view, time to intubation, time to ventilation, Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopy grades, and complications related to the laryngoscopy and intubation were analyzed. Results and conclusions First pass intubation success rates were similar for the King Vision and the Macintosh (96.6% vs. 94.3%, respectively, p > 0.05). King Vision resulted in a longer average time to glottic view (95% CI 0.5-1.4 s, p < 0.001), and time to intubation (95% CI 3-4.6 s, p < 0.001). The difference in time to intubation was similar when unsuccessful intubation attempts were excluded (95% CI 2.8-4.4 s, p < 0.001). Based on the modified Mallampati class at the preoperative visit, the King Vision improved the glottic view in significantly more patients (220 patients, 56.7%) compared with the Macintosh (180 patients, 46.4%) (p < 0.001). None of the patients had peripheral oxygen desaturation below 94%. Experienced anesthesiologists may obtain similar rates of first pass intubation success and airway trauma with both laryngoscopes. King Vision requires longer times to visualize the glottis and to intubate the trachea, but does not cause additional desaturation.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos Comparamos a eficiência do videolaringoscópio King Vision e do laringoscópio Macintosh, quando usados por anestesiologistas experientes em pacientes adultos com diferentes condições de intubação, em um estudo clínico prospectivo randomizado e controlado. Métodos Foram selecionados 388 pacientes com estado físico ASA I ou II (de acordo com a classificação da American Society of Anesthesiologists - ASA), programados para anestesia geral com intubação traqueal. Cada paciente foi intubado com ambos os laringoscópios sucessivamente, em uma ordem aleatória. A taxa de sucesso da intubação, o tempo até a melhor visibilização da glote, o tempo de intubação, o tempo de ventilação, a classificação de Cormack-Lehane (graus) e as complicações relacionadas à laringoscopia e intubação foram analisados. Resultados e conclusões As taxas de sucesso na intubação na primeira tentativa foram similares para o King Vision e o Macintosh (96,6% vs. 94,3%, respectivamente, p > 0,05). As médias dos tempos até a melhor visibilização da glote (IC 95% 0,5-1,4 s, p < 0,001) e de intubação (IC 95% 3-4,6 s, p < 0,001) foram maiores no King Vision. A diferença no tempo de intubação foi semelhante quando as tentativas malsucedidas de intubação foram excluídas (IC 95% 2,8-4,4 s, p < 0,001). Com base na classificação de Mallampati modificada na consulta pré-operatória, o King Vision melhorou significativamente a visibilização da glote em mais pacientes (220 pacientes, 56,7%) em comparação com o Macintosh (180 pacientes, 46,4%) (p < 0,001). Nenhum dos pacientes apresentou dessaturação periférica de oxigênio abaixo de 94%. Os anestesiologistas experientes podem obter taxas semelhantes de sucesso na primeira tentativa de intubação e de traumas das vias aéreas com ambos os laringoscópios. O King Vision requer tempos mais longos até a visibilização da glote e de intubação traqueal, mas não causa dessaturação adicional.

[Comparison of King Vision video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial]. / Comparação entre o videolaringoscópio King Vision e o laringoscópio Macintosh: um ensaio clínico prospectivo randomizado e controlado.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We compared the efficiency of the King Vision video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by experienced anesthesiologists on adult patients with varying intubating conditions, in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. METHODS: A total of 388 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, scheduled for general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Each patient was intubated with both laryngoscopes successively, in a randomized order. Intubation success rate, time to best glottic view, time to intubation, time to ventilation, Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopy grades, and complications related to the laryngoscopy and intubation were analyzed. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: First pass intubation success rates were similar for the King Vision and the Macintosh (96.6% vs. 94.3%, respectively, p>0.05). King Vision resulted in a longer average time to glottic view (95% CI 0.5-1.4s, p<0.001), and time to intubation (95% CI 3-4.6s, p<0.001). The difference in time to intubation was similar when unsuccessful intubation attempts were excluded (95% CI 2.8-4.4s, p<0.001). Based on the modified Mallampati class at the preoperative visit, the King Vision improved the glottic view in significantly more patients (220 patients, 56.7%) compared with the Macintosh (180 patients, 46.4%) (p<0.001). None of the patients had peripheral oxygen desaturation below 94%. Experienced anesthesiologists may obtain similar rates of first pass intubation success and airway trauma with both laryngoscopes. King Vision requires longer times to visualize the glottis and to intubate the trachea, but does not cause additional desaturation.

Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScopeTM visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients / Comparação das características de inserção de sonda nasogástrica, usando visibilização pelo laringoscópio GlideScope® vs. guiada pelo laringoscópio MacIntosh em pacientes anestesiados e intubados

Abstract Background and objective: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScopeTM visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. Methods: Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded. Results: The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScopeTM Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p = 0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2 ± 9.3 s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9 ± 13.0 s (p = 0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p = 0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking. Conclusion: This study showed that using the GlideScopeTM to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivo: Este foi um estudo clínico prospectivo e randômico para comparar a taxa de sucesso da inserção de sonda nasogástrica (NG) com as técnicas de visibilização guiada pelo laringoscópio GlideScope® versus guiada pelo laringoscópio MacIntosh em pacientes anestesiados e intubados. Métodos: Foram recrutados 96, ASA I ou II, entre 18-70 anos, e divididos randomicamente em dois grupos, com uma ou outra técnica. Foi calculado o tempo transcorrido desde a inserção da sonda NG, da narina até a inserção do comprimento calculado da sonda. A taxa de sucesso de inserção da sonda NG foi avaliada quanto à inserção bem-sucedida na primeira tentativa. As complicações associadas às técnicas de inserção foram registradas. Resultados: Os resultados mostraram taxas de sucesso de 74,5% para o grupo GlideScope® em comparação com 58,3% para o grupo MacIntosh (p = 0,10). Para as tentativas que falharam, a sonda NG foi inserida com sucesso em todos os casos, com as técnicas de resgate. A duração da primeira tentativa para ambas as técnicas não foi estatisticamente significativa: 17,2 ± 9,3 segundos no Grupo A e 18,9 ± 13,0 segundos no Grupo B (p = 0,57). No total, 33 pacientes desenvolveram complicações durante a inserção da sonda NG: 39,4% no Grupo A e 60,6% no Grupo B (p = 0,15). As complicações mais comuns ocorridas foram enrolamento, seguido de sangramento e dobradura. Conclusão: Este estudo mostrou que o uso do GlideScope® para facilitar a inserção de sonda nasogástrica foi comparável ao uso do laringoscópio MacIntosh quanto à taxa de sucesso de inserção e às complicações.

Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScope™ visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScope™ visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. METHODS: Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded. RESULTS: The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScope™ Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p=0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2±9.3s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9±13.0s (p=0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p=0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking. CONCLUSION: This study showed that using the GlideScope™ to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.

[Comparing insertion characteristics on nasogastric tube placement by using GlideScope™ visualization vs. MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anaesthetized and intubated patients]. / Comparação das características de inserção de sonda nasogástrica, usando visibilização pelo laringoscópio GlideScope(®) vs. guiada pelo laringoscópio MacIntosh em pacientes anestesiados e intubados.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This was a prospective, randomized clinical study to compare the success rate of nasogastric tube insertion by using GlideScope™ visualization versus direct MacIntosh laryngoscope assistance in anesthetized and intubated patients. METHODS: Ninety-six ASA I or II patients, aged 18-70 years were recruited and randomized into two groups using either technique. The time taken from insertion of the nasogastric tube from the nostril until the calculated length of tube had been inserted was recorded. The success rate of nasogastric tube insertion was evaluated in terms of successful insertion in the first attempt. Complications associated with the insertion techniques were recorded. RESULTS: The results showed success rates of 74.5% in the GlideScope™ Group as compared to 58.3% in the MacIntosh Group (p=0.10). For the failed attempts, the nasogastric tube was successfully inserted in all cases using rescue techniques. The duration taken in the first attempt for both techniques was not statistically significant; Group A was 17.2±9.3s as compared to Group B, with a duration of 18.9±13.0s (p=0.57). A total of 33 patients developed complications during insertion of the nasogastric tube, 39.4% in Group A and 60.6% in Group B (p=0.15). The most common complications, which occurred, were coiling, followed by bleeding and kinking. CONCLUSION: This study showed that using the GlideScope™ to facilitate nasogastric tube insertion was comparable to the use of the MacIntosh laryngoscope in terms of successful rate of insertion and complications.