scholarly journals A Comparison of the GlideScope Video Laryngoscope to the C-MAC Video Laryngoscope for Intubation in the Emergency Department

2013 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 414-420.e1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jarrod Mosier ◽  
Stephen Chiu ◽  
Asad E. Patanwala ◽  
John C. Sakles
2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Vassiliadis ◽  
Alex Tzannes ◽  
Kerry Hitos ◽  
Jessica Brimble ◽  
Toby Fogg

2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 739-748 ◽  
Author(s):  
John C. Sakles ◽  
Jarrod Mosier ◽  
Stephen Chiu ◽  
Mari Cosentino ◽  
Leah Kalin

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 322-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrie-Marie Russell ◽  
Anil Hormis ◽  

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.


Medicina ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 55 (6) ◽  
pp. 225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Byeong Chul Min ◽  
Jong Eun Park ◽  
Gun Tak Lee ◽  
Tae Rim Kim ◽  
Hee Yoon ◽  
...  

Background and objectives: To compare the first pass success (FPS) rate of the C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC) and conventional Macintosh-type direct laryngoscopy (DL) during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) in the emergency department (ED). Materials and Methods: This study was a single-center, retrospective study conducted from April 2014 to July 2018. Patients were categorized into either the C-MAC or DL group, according to the device used on the first endotracheal intubation (ETI) attempt. The primary outcome was the FPS rate. A multiple logistic regression model was developed to identify factors related to the FPS. Results: A total of 573 ETIs were performed. Of the eligible cases, 263 and 310 patients were assigned to the C-MAC and DL group, respectively. The overall FPS rate was 75% (n = 431/573). The FPS rate was higher in the C-MAC group than in the DL group, but there was no statistically significant difference (total n = 431, 79% compared to 72%, p = 0.075). In the multiple logistic regression analysis, the C-MAC use had higher FPS rate (adjusted odds ratio: 1.80; 95% CI, 1.17–2.77; p = 0.007) than that of the DL use. Conclusions: The C-MAC use on the first ETI attempt during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in the emergency department had a higher FPS rate than that of the DL use.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document