Prevailing practices in airway management: a prospective single-centre observational study of endotracheal intubation

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Airway management during anaesthesia has potential difficulties and risks. We aimed to investigate the utility of routine airway assessment for predicting difficult tracheal intubation, review the prevailing practice of videolaryngoscope use amongst anaesthetists in a teaching hospital and determine the incidence of intraoperative and postoperative airway-related complications.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A prospective observational study of 1,654 patients undergoing general anaesthesia with endotracheal intubation over a seven-month period was performed. Data regarding airway and anaesthetic management was collected and analysed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Videolaryngoscopes were used as the first-choice equipment in 60.5% of the cohort. The incidence of difficult intubation was 2.1%, of which 45.7% of cases were unanticipated. The sensitivity of airway assessment was 54.3%, with a positive predictive value of 8.1%. When difficult intubation was anticipated, more videolaryngoscopes were used as the first equipment of choice compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.001). In the Macintosh group, more patients required a change of airway equipment (p = 0.015), but the number of intubation attempts was similar (p = 0.293). The incidence of intraoperative (p = 0.920) and postoperative complications (p = 0.380) were similar in both groups.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Using the current predictors of difficult intubation, half of the difficult airways we encountered were unanticipated. Videolaryngoscopes were preferred when difficulty was anticipated and were also used in routine tracheal intubation.</p>

Comparison of results from novice and trained personnel using the Macintosh laryngoscope, Pentax AWS®, C-MAC™ and Bonfils intubation fibrescope: a manikin study

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Indirect laryngoscopes offer improved laryngeal view and higher success rates of intubation, particularly for difficult airways. We hypothesised that: (a) the time required for intubation, overall success rates and ease of intubation with indirect laryngoscopes would be better than with the Macintosh laryngoscope; and (b) novices may achieve higher success rates and intubate faster using indirect laryngoscopes.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>In a cross-sectional observational study, 13 novices and 13 skilled anaesthetists were recruited. Participants were compared when intubating a manikin simulating normal and difficult airway scenarios using the Macintosh laryngoscope, Pentax Airway Scope® (AWS), C-MAC[TM] and Bonfils intubation fibrescope.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There was no significant difference in intubation success rates between the groups. Skilled anaesthetists intubated faster than novices with Pentax AWS in the difficult airway scenario (22 s vs. 33 s, p = 0.047). The mean intubation times for C-MAC and Pentax AWS were shorter than for the Macintosh laryngoscope and Bonfils intubation fibrescope in both difficult (C-MAC: 24 s, Pentax AWS: 28 s, Macintosh: 80 s, Bonfils: 61 s; p < 0.001) and normal (C-MAC: 17 s, Pentax AWS: 19 s, Macintosh: 39 s, Bonfils: 38 s; p = 0.002) airway scenarios.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>We found that intubation success was more than 85% with all indirect laryngoscopes compared to 69% for the Macintosh laryngoscope. Both C-MAC and Pentax AWS achieved faster intubation times compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope and Bonfils intubation fibroscope for both airway scenarios. Skilled anaesthetists were 33% faster than novices when intubating a difficult airway using Pentax AWS.</p>