Comparison of Intubation Conditions Between Airtraq, McGrath Video Laryngoscopes, and Macintosh Under Conditions of Simulated Trauma Airway and Rapid Sequence Induction Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Patients arriving at the emergency department with a potential cervical spine injury and immobilized in a rigid cervical collar often require emergency airway management and rapid sequence induction intubation (RSII). There have been several advances in airway management with the advent of channeled (AirtraqⓇ; Prodol Meditec) and nonchanneled (McGrathⓇ; Meditronics) video laryngoscopes, which enable intubation without the removal of the cervical collar, but their efficacy and superiority over conventional laryngoscopy (Macintosh) in the presence of a rigid cervical collar and cricoid pressure have not been evaluated. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to compare the channeled (Airtraq [group A]) and nonchanneled (McGrath [Group M]) video laryngoscopes with a conventional laryngoscope (Macintosh [Group C]) in a simulated trauma airway. METHODS: A prospective randomized controlled study was conducted in a tertiary care center. Participants were 300 patients requiring general anesthesia (American Society of Anesthesiologists class I or II), of both sexes, and aged 18-60 years. Airway management was simulated without removal of a rigid cervical collar and using cricoid pressure during intubation. After RSI, patients were intubated with one of the study techniques according to randomization. Intubation time and intubation difficulty scale (IDS) score were noted. RESULTS: Mean intubation time was 42.2 s in group C, 35.7 s in group M, and 21.8 s in group A (p = 0.001). Intubation was easy in group M and group A (median IDS score of 0; interquartile range [IQR] 0-1 for group M and median IDS score of 1; IQR 0-2 for group A and group C; p < 0.001). A higher proportion (95.1%) of patients had an IDS score of < 1 in group A. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of RSII with cricoid pressure in the presence of a cervical collar was easier and more rapid with channeled video laryngoscope than with other techniques.

Airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic: macintosh laryngoscopy vs. video laryngoscopy.

OBJECTIVE: Our study aimed to compare video laryngoscopy (VL) vs. direct laryngoscopy (DL) for tracheal intubation in adult patients receiving general anesthesia for elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study included 150 patients 18-65 years old, ASA I-II (American Society of Anesthesiologists), and negative PCR tests before the operation was scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia. Patients were subdivided into two groups considering the intubation method: the video laryngoscopy group (Group VL, n=75) and the Macintosh laryngoscopy group (Group ML, n: 75). Demographic data, operation type, intubation comfort, and field of view, intubation times, complications were recorded. RESULTS: Both groups' demographic data, complications, and hemodynamic parameters were similar. In Group VL, Cormack-Lehane Scoring values were higher (p<0.001), the field of view was better (p<0.001), and the intubation was more comfortable (p<0.002). The duration for the vocal cord appearance was significantly shorter in the VL group than in the ML group (7.55±1.00 vs. 8.31±2.20 sec, p=0.008, respectively). The beginning of intubation to full ventilation of the lungs was significantly shorter in the VL group than the ML group (12.71±2.72 vs. 17.48±6.8, p<0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Using VL in endotracheal intubation may be more reliable in reducing intervention times and the risk of suspected transmission during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Croatian national audit on videolaryngoscopes and alternative intubation devices in the era of COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Videolaryngoscopy (VL) is the recommended strategy for airway management in COVID-19 patients and guidelines recommends that all anesthesiologists should be trained to use and have immediate access to the device. However, the availability of VL in hospitals and its use may vary, as well as the choice of the device and necessary training. Our primary aim was to investigate data on availability of VL in Croatia, its use, the choice of the device and its implementation, with special consideration of COVID-19 management. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to all Croatian hospitals that have anesthesiology service available. The survey was designed to examine data on availability and use of VL with special consideration of COVID-19 wards. The survey was conducted between 1.03.2021 and 30.08.2021. RESULTS: Response rate was 83%. VL was available in 86% of hospitals and the best supplied areas were intensive care units, general surgery and gynecology/obstetrics. The most common VL devices were Bonfils, C-MAC and C-MAC D-blade. The choice of VL was mainly based on centralized hospital procurement and informal introduction was found to be the most frequent training method. The VL was mainly used in Croatian hospitals in cases of difficult airway or as a backup method after failed intubation. Only 16% of hospitals reported regular use in everyday practice. Even though, VL was available in 64% of COVID-19 wards, only 21% of hospitals reported routine use. CONCLUSION: Although VL is available in the majority of Croatian hospitals, its use is still mainly restricted to difficult airway scenarios. Use of VL in COVID-19 management is also low and education on the method is still mainly informal. Based upon our results better implementation in practice should be targeted, as well as formal skill trainings especially regarding COVID-19 care.

Maintaining Prehospital Intubation Success with COVID-19 Personal Protective Precautions.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention for exposure to airborne infective pathogens, including the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). During the recent pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) was essential to protect staff during intubation but is recognized to make the practical conduct of anesthesia and intubation more difficult. In the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic, some simple alterations were made to the emergency anesthesia standard operating procedure (SOP) of a prehospital critical care service to attempt to maintain high intubation success rates despite the challenges posed by wearing PPE. This retrospective observational cohort study aims to compare first-pass intubation success rates before and after the introduction of PPE and an altered SOP. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2019 through August 30, 2021. The retrospective analysis used prospectively collected data using prehospital electronic patient records. Anonymized data were held in Excel (v16.54) and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v28). Patient inclusion criteria were those of all ages who received a primary tracheal intubation attempt outside the hospital by critical care teams. March 27, 2020 was the date from which the SOP changed to mandatory COVID-19 SOP including Level 3 PPE - this date is used to separate the cohort groups. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 1,266 patients who received primary intubations by the service. The overall first-pass intubation success rate was 89.7% and the overall intubation success rate was 99.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in first-pass success rate between the two groups: 90.3% in the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546) and 89.3% in the COVID-19 group (n = 720); Pearson chi-square 0.329; P = .566. In addition, there was no statistical difference in overall intubation success rate between groups: 99.8% in the pre-COVID-19 group and 100.0% in the COVID-19 group; Pearson chi-square 1.32; P = .251.Non-drug-assisted intubations were more than twice as likely to require multiple attempts in both the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546; OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.19-3.90; P = .01) and in the COVID-19 group (n = 720; OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1; P = <.001). CONCLUSION: This study presents simple changes to a prehospital intubation SOP in response to COVID-19 which included mandatory use of PPE, the first intubator always being the most experienced clinician, and routine first use of video laryngoscopy (VL). These changes allowed protection of the clinical team while successfully maintaining the first-pass and overall success rates for prehospital tracheal intubation.

Comparison of Effectiveness between Wycope Video Laryngoscope, C-MAC Video Laryngoscope, and Direct Laryngoscope in Intubation of Elective Surgery Patients.

OBJECTIVE: Airway management has undergone a dramatic transformation since the arrival of video laryngoscope (VL). VL has higher intubation success rate on first try and lower complications in comparison to direct laryngoscope (DL). The use of VL is recommended in intubating COVID-19 patients to speed up intubation time and reduce failure rate. A team from Airlangga University developed Wycope Video Laryngoscope (Wycope VL), a VL with Wi-Fi connection to smartphones for an easier VL with low cost. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of Wycope VL, C-MAC Video Laryngoscope (C-MAC VL), and DL. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was an analytic observational study with a cross sectional design, involving 63 patients who were divided into 3 groups based on the type of laryngoscope, namely Wycope VL, C-MAC VL, and DL. Intubation is carried out by 4th year anaesthesiology resident. Research subjects were patients who will undergo elective surgery at Dr. Soetomo General Hospital under general anaesthesia using orotracheal tube. Inclusion age of 19-64 years, PS ASA 1-2, no anatomical abnormalities of the airway, did not have difficult airway, and was willing to participate in the study. RESULTS: All patients were successfully intubated without complications. C-MAC VL (5.33±1.42 seconds) and Wycope VL (5.95±0.74 seconds) was significantly faster in seeing vocal folds and glottis compared to DL (7.14±0.72 seconds) with P=0.000. DL was significantly faster in average time of intubation (15.52±5.90 seconds) compared to C-MAC VL (16.95±1.11 seconds) and Wycope VL (20.29±2.81 seconds) with P=0.000. CONCLUSION: DL was faster compared to VL in speed of intubation while C-MAC VL and Wycope VL was faster in viewing the vocal folds and glottis compared to DL.

The use of video laryngoscopy outside the operating room: A systematic review.

This study aimed to describe how video laryngoscopy is used outside the operating room within the hospital setting. Specifically, we aimed to summarise the evidence for the use of video laryngoscopy outside the operating room, and detail how it appears in current clinical practice guidelines. A literature search was conducted across two databases (MEDLINE and Embase), and all articles underwent screening for relevance to our aims and pre-determined exclusion criteria. Our results include 14 clinical practice guidelines, 12 interventional studies, 38 observational studies. Our results show that video laryngoscopy is likely to improve glottic view and decrease the incidence of oesophageal intubations; however, it remains unclear as to how this contributes to first-pass success, overall intubation success and clinical outcomes such as mortality outside the operating room. Furthermore, our results indicate that the appearance of video laryngoscopy in clinical practice guidelines has increased in recent years, and particularly through the COVID-19 pandemic. Current COVID-19 airway management guidelines unanimously introduce video laryngoscopy as a first-line (rather than rescue) device.

The relationship between years of anesthesia experience and first-time intubation success rate with direct laryngoscope and video laryngoscope in infants: a retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Studies in adults have reported that video laryngoscope is more useful than direct laryngoscope when training less experienced anesthesiologists. However, whether this is true for infants remains unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate whether the use of video laryngoscope would result in smaller differences in success rate according to anesthesiologists' expertise than those in direct laryngoscope. METHODS: Medical records and video recordings from the operating room of patients aged < 1 year who underwent non-cardiac surgery between March 2019 and September 2021 were reviewed. Tracheal intubations between April 8, 2020, and June 20, 2021, were excluded due to the shortage of video laryngoscope blades during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rates of first-time tracheal intubation success were compared by years of anesthesia experience and initial intubation device. RESULTS: In total, 125 of 175 tracheal intubations were analyzed (direct laryngoscope group, n = 72; video laryngoscope group, n = 53). The first-time tracheal intubation success rate increased with years of experience as an anesthesiologist in the direct laryngoscope group (odds ratio OR 1.70, 95% confidence interval CI 1.15, 2.49; P = 0.0070), but not the video laryngoscope group (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.74, 1.35; P = 0.99). CONCLUSION: The differences in success rate according to the anesthesiologists' years of experience were non-significant when using video laryngoscope in infants, compared to those in direct laryngoscope.

Cuff inflation technique is better than Magill forceps technique to facilitate nasotracheal intubation guiding by GlideScope® video laryngoscope.

Video laryngoscopy is often selected to assist nasotracheal intubation in allowing better laryngeal visualization, although there is no comparative study evaluating the effectiveness between auxiliary techniques by using Magill forceps and inflated cuff in GlideScope video laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Fifty-one of 100 patients in a Magill forceps group and 47 of 100 patients in a cuff inflation group were included in the final analysis in this randomized, single-blind, parallel, clinical trial study. Induction agents were routinely administered according to body weight, while intubation time spent, attempts, and related side effects were recorded. Compared to the Magill forceps group, the cuff inflation technique shortened the total intubation time (70.0 ± 24.5 s vs. 87.0 ± 25.0 s, p = 0.001) and the time of advancing the nasotracheal tube from oropharyngeal space into the trachea (25.9 ± 16.4 s vs. 42.3 ± 21.2 s, p < 0.001). However, the number of intubation attempts was not significantly different between groups. During tube advancement, the tube was rotated to accommodate the glottis and trachea more frequently in the cuff inflation group (p = 0.009), but the blade of the laryngoscope shifted and was adjusted to the proper position more frequently in the Magill forceps group (p < 0.001). In the Magill forceps group, the tube cuff might be clipped incidentally and the intubator might shift their gaze away from the screen during intubation, although there was no significant difference in intubation-related side effects between groups. Unlike the conventional approach, nasotracheal intubation with the GlideScope® video laryngoscope using the auxiliary technique of cuff inflation could be more suited than using Magill forceps.

Should videolaryngoscopy be used first line for all intubations in the post-COVID-19 era?

While previously reserved for use in patients with difficult airways or for trainee education, videolaryngoscopy has come to the forefront of anaesthesia after its use as first line in the intubation of all patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. This article examines its suitability for routine first line use in all intubations.

Videolaryngoscopy as a first-intention technique for tracheal intubation in unselected surgical patients: a before and after observational study.

BACKGROUND: Using a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope as a first-intention device for tracheal intubation of unselected patients in the operating room has not often been studied. We hypothesised that using a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope as a first-intention device is associated with an increased proportion of easy tracheal intubation. METHODS: In a quality improvement project for airway management aimed at implementing a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope as a first-intention device, we included all consecutive tracheal intubations in adults from March, 2017 to September, 2020 in two French teaching hospitals. We divided the cohort into three temporal cohorts: the pre-intervention, implementation, and post-intervention periods. The primary outcome was the proportion of easy airway management. The secondary outcomes were the rescue technique, Cormack-Lehane III or IV view, and operator-reported difficulty of intubation. Data from one hospital compliant with the quality improvement project were compared with data from a non-compliant hospital. RESULTS: A total of 26 692 tracheal intubations were performed. Among 11 938 intubations included in the compliant hospital, 5487 were included in the pre-intervention, 1845 in the implementation, and 4606 in the post-intervention periods. In comparison to the pre-intervention period, the proportions of easy tracheal intubation increased from 94.3% (5177 of 5487) to 98.7% (4547 of 4606)) in the post-intervention period (+4.4% [95% confidence interval 3.7-5.1%], P<0.001). In comparison to the pre-intervention period, all secondary outcome proportions were significantly lower in the post-intervention period. No significant changes were noted in the non-compliant hospital between the pre- and post-intervention periods. CONCLUSIONS: Using a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope as a first-intention device for tracheal intubation in the operating room was associated with a significant increase in the proportion of easy tracheal intubation, compared with use of the standard Macintosh laryngoscope.

Video laryngoscope versus USB borescope-aided endotracheal intubation in adults with anticipated difficult airway: a prospective randomized controlled study.

BACKGROUND: Video laryngoscopes are approved equipment for difficult airway intubations. The borescope, which was introduced during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era, is placed over a direct laryngoscope blade to provide an economical video laryngoscope. In the current study, we investigated the use of an endotracheal tube mounted over a USB borescope versus a video laryngoscope in patients with suspected difficult airways. METHODS: After obtaining informed consent, 120 adult patients with suspected difficult airways undergoing elective surgery were included in this study. Patients were randomized into the USB borescope and video laryngoscope groups. The primary outcome was time to successful intubation. The secondary outcomes included hemodynamic changes, anesthetist's satisfaction, and the incidence of complications. RESULTS: Intubation time was comparable between the two groups (video laryngoscope: 30.63 s and borescope: 28.35 s; P = 0.166). However, the view was clearer (P = 0.026) and the incidence of fogging was lower (P = 0.015) with the video laryngoscope compared to the borescope. Conversely, anesthetist's satisfaction frequency was higher with the borescope than with the video laryngoscope (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The video laryngoscope provided a better view and less fogging with an intubation time that was comparable to that of the borescope; however, the higher cost of the video laryngoscope limits its availability. Therefore, the borescope is a low-cost, readily available device that can be used for intubating patients with potentially difficult airways.

Educational suitability of new channel-type video-laryngoscope with AI-based glottis guidance system for novices wearing personal-protective-equipment.

ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine which of 4 laryngoscopes, including A-LRYNGO, a newly developed channel-type video-laryngoscope with an embedded artificial intelligence-based glottis guidance system, is appropriate for tracheal intubation training in novice medical students wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).Thirty healthy senior medical school student volunteers were recruited. The participants underwent 2 tests with 4 laryngoscopes: Macintosh, McGrath, Pentax Airway-Scope and A-LRYNGO. The first test was conducted just after a lecture without any hands-on workshop. The second test was conducted after a one-on-one hands-on workshop. In each test, we measured the time required for tracheal intubation, intubation success rate, etc, and asked all participants to complete a short questionnaire.The time to completely insert the endotracheal tube with the Macintosh laryngoscope did not change significantly (P = .177), but the remaining outcomes significantly improved after the hands-on workshop (all P < .05). Despite being novice practitioners with no intubation experience and wearing PPE, the, 2 channel-type video-laryngoscopes were associated with good intubation-related performance before the hands-on workshop (all P < .001). A-LRYNGO's artificial intelligence-based glottis guidance system showed 93.1% accuracy, but 20.7% of trials were guided by the vocal folds.To prepare to manage the airway of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a channel-type video-laryngoscope is appropriate for tracheal intubation training for novice practitioners wearing PPE.

Evaluation of the conventional and modified aerosol boxes during tracheal intubation in normal and difficult airways: a randomized, crossover, manikin simulation study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate conventional and modified aerosol boxes in terms of intubation time, first-pass intubation success, and mouth-to-mouth distance between the laryngoscopist and patient during tracheal intubation in simulated patients with normal and difficult airways. Sixteen anesthesiologists performed tracheal intubations with direct laryngoscope or three different videolaryngoscopes (McGRATH MAC videolaryngoscope, C-MAC videolaryngoscope, and Pentax-AWS) without an aerosol box or with a conventional or a modified aerosol boxes in simulated manikins with normal and difficult airways. Intubation time, first-pass intubation success, and mouth-to-mouth distance during tracheal intubation were recorded. Compared to no aerosol box, the use of a conventional aerosol box significantly increased intubation time in both normal and difficult airways (Bonferroni-corrected P-value (Pcorrected) = 0.005 and Pcorrected = 0.003, respectively). Intubation time was significantly shorter with the modified aerosol box than with the conventional one for both normal and difficult airways (Pcorrected = 0.003 and Pcorrected = 0.011, respectively). However, no significant differences were found in intubation time between no aerosol box and the modified aerosol box for normal and difficult airways (Pcorrected = 0.336 and Pcorrected = 0.112, respectively). The use of conventional or modified aerosol boxes significantly extended the mouth-to-mouth distances compared to not using an aerosol box during tracheal intubation with each laryngoscope (all Pcorrected < 0.05), and the distances were not different between the conventional and modified boxes in normal and difficult airways. The use of modified aerosol box did not increase intubation time and could help maintain a distance from the simulated patients with normal and difficult airways.