scholarly journals Video Laryngoscopic Endotracheal Intubation in Cardiac Operation Theater - Experience at a Peripheral Tertiary Healthcare Centre of Bangladesh

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-53
Author(s):  
Minhazur Rahman Chowdhury ◽  
Muhammad Abdul Quaium Chowdhury ◽  
Jitu Das Gupta ◽  
Subir Barua ◽  
Mohammad Abdul Mannan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Hemodynamic Response ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Adult Patients ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Glottic View

Background: Endotracheal intubation is an essential primary skill for all anesthesiologists. For cardiac anesthesiologists rapid and proper intubation is more important as failure may cause serious consequences. Video laryngoscope provides a better real time view of the larynx, epiglottis and vocal cords. It also keeps the intubating anesthetist away from the patient as compared to conventional laryngoscopy. This may be very important in this COVID-19 era. To the best of our knowledge the Department of Cardiac Surgery and Cardiac Anesthesia of Chattogram Medical College & Hospital is the first center in Bangladesh to introduce video laryngoscope in cardiac OT. The objective of this study was aimed to compare the intubation time, hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy, success rates and operator’s comfort using the conventional Macintosh laryngoscope and video laryngoscope in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 adult patients were included in this comparative study, subjected to general anesthesia for cardiac surgery, intubated using either conventional Macintosh direct laryngoscope or video laryngoscope. Patients were intubated by 3 different consultant anesthesiologists with equal competency of our department. Results: There was not much difference between Video laryngoscopy and conventional laryngoscopy in terms of intubation time and success rate. Video laryngoscopy exhibited less hemodynamic response to laryngoscopy and intubation; however, the difference was not statistically significant in this small group of patients. Operators were much more comfortable with Video laryngoscope than conventional laryngoscope particularly with the cases of difficult intubation because of the better glottic view with the former. Conclusion: Video laryngoscope is preferred by cardiac anesthetists because of better glottic view. Bangladesh Heart Journal 2020; 35(1) : 47-53

scholarly journals 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

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (12) ◽  
pp. 322-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terrie-Marie Russell ◽  
Anil Hormis ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Difficult Airway ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Review Literature ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
First Line ◽  
Glottic View ◽  
Glidescope Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Difficult Airways

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.

scholarly journals GlideScope® Versus C-MAC® Video Laryngoscopy in Pediatric Intubation. Does Time Matter?

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rufinah Teo ◽  
Nornafiza Mian ◽  
Syarifah Noor Nazihah Sayed Masri ◽  
Siti Nidzwani Mohd Mahdi ◽  
Yeoh Chih Nie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Elective Surgery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Satisfaction Score ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Airway Complications ◽  
Glottic View ◽  
Group 2

Background: The emergence of video laryngoscopy in the management of pediatric airways has been invaluable as it has been known that these patients are prone to airway complications. Video laryngoscopes are proven to improve glottic view in both normal and difficult airways in pediatric patients. The time taken to intubate using these devices is inconsistent. Objectives: This study was designed to compare the time to intubate using two common video laryngoscopes, C-MAC®, and GlideScope®, aimed at pediatric patients age 3 - 12 years old. Methods: A Randomized controlled trial was conducted in 65 ASA I or II patients, aged 3 - 12 years old who underwent elective surgery using endotracheal tube. They were divided into group 1 patients who were intubated using C-MAC® video laryngoscope versus group 2 patients who were intubated with GlideScope® video laryngoscope. Laryngoscopists were all anesthetists with experience in both C-MAC® and GlideScope® intubation. Time to intubate and intubation attempts were measured. Any extra maneuver, airway complications, and laryngoscopist satisfaction scores were also recorded. Results: Total time to intubate was significantly longer in GlideScope® group than in C-MAC® group (P < 0.001). Both devices managed to achieve excellent glottic views. The first pass attempt success rate was similar between both devices. There was no difference between requirement of extra maneuvers to assist intubations. There were also no adverse events associated with all the intubations. The satisfaction score of anesthetists was comparable to each other. Conclusions: Even though intubation time using GlideScope® is longer, both devices give excellent glottic view, comparable success intubation, and anesthetists satisfaction score.

Airway Management in Disaster Response: A Manikin Study Comparing Direct and Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation by Prehospital Providers in Level C Personal Protective Equipment

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 352-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sami Yousif ◽  
Jason T. Machan ◽  
Yasser Alaska ◽  
Selim Suner
Keyword(s):  
Airway Management ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Personal Protective Equipment ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Protective Equipment ◽  
Manikin Study

AbstractIntroductionAirway management is one of many challenges that medical providers face in disaster response operations. The use of personal protective equipment (PPE), in particular, was found to be associated with higher failure rates and a prolonged time to achieve airway control.Hypothesis/ProblemThe objective of this study was to determine whether video laryngoscopy could facilitate the performance of endotracheal intubation by disaster responders wearing Level C PPE.MethodsIn this prospective, randomized, crossover study, a convenience sample of practicing prehospital providers were recruited. Following standardized training in PPE use and specific training in the use of airway devices, subjects in Level C PPE were observed while performing endotracheal intubation on a stock airway in a Laerdal Resusci-Anne manikin system (Laerdal Medical; Stavanger, Norway) using one of three laryngoscopic devices in randomized order: a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Welch Allyn Inc.; New York USA), a GlideScope Ranger video laryngoscope (Verathon Medical; Bothell, Washington USA), and a King Vision video laryngoscope (King Systems; Noblesville, Indiana USA). The primary outcome was time to intubation (TTI), and the secondary outcome was participant perception of the ease of use for each device.ResultsA total of 20 prehospital providers participated in the study: 18 (90%) paramedics and two (10%) Emergency Medical Technicians-Cardiac. Participants took significantly longer when using the GlideScope Ranger [35.82 seconds (95% CI, 32.24-39.80)] to achieve successful intubation than with the Macintosh laryngoscope [25.69 seconds (95% CI, 22.42-29.42); adj. P<.0001] or the King Vision [29.87 seconds (95% CI, 26.08-34.21); adj. P=.033], which did not significantly differ from each other (adj. P=.1017). Self-reported measures of satisfaction evaluated on a 0% to 100% visual analog scale (VAS) identified marginally greater subject satisfaction with the King Vision [86.7% (SD=76.4-92.9%)] over the GlideScope Ranger [73.0% (SD=61.9-81.8%); P=.04] and the Macintosh laryngoscope [69.9% (SD=57.9-79.7%); P=.05] prior to adjustment for multiplicity. The GlideScope Ranger and the Macintosh laryngoscope did not differ themselves (P=.65), and the differences were not statistically significant after adjustment for multiplicity (adj. P=.12 for both comparisons).ConclusionUse of video laryngoscopes by prehospital providers in Level C PPE did not result in faster endotracheal intubation than use of a Macintosh laryngoscope. The King Vision video laryngoscope, in particular, performed at least as well as the Macintosh laryngoscope and was reported to be easier to use.YousifS, MachanJT, AlaskaY, SunerS. Airway management in disaster response: a manikin study comparing direct and video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation by prehospital providers in Level C personal protective equipment. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017;32(4):352–356.

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Video-Laryngoscopy versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Double-Lumen Endotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (23) ◽  
pp. 5524
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Karczewska ◽  
Szymon Bialka ◽  
Jacek Smereka ◽  
Maciej Cyran ◽  
Grazyna Nowak-Starz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Intubation Attempt ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Double Lumen ◽  
Glottic View ◽  
Lehane Grade

The available meta-analyses have inconclusively indicated the advantages of video-laryngoscopy (VL) in different clinical situations; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine efficacy outcomes such as successful first attempt or time to perform endotracheal intubation as well as adverse events of VL vs. direct laryngoscopes (DL) for double-lumen intubation. First intubation attempt success rate was 87.9% for VL and 84.5% for DL (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.86; I2 = 61%; p = 0.08). Overall success rate was 99.8% for VL and 98.8% for DL, respectively (OR = 3.89; 95%CI: 0.95 to 15.93; I2 = 0; p = 0.06). Intubation time for VL was 43.4 ± 30.4 s compared to 54.0 ± 56.3 s for DL (MD = −11.87; 95%CI: −17.06 to −6.68; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Glottic view based on Cormack–Lehane grades 1 or 2 equaled 93.1% and 88.1% in the VL and DL groups, respectively (OR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.18 to 9.41; I2 = 63%; p = 0.02). External laryngeal manipulation was needed in 18.4% cases of VL compared with 42.8% for DL (OR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.40; I2 = 69%; p < 0.001). For double-lumen intubation, VL offers shorter intubation time, better glottic view based on Cormack–Lehane grade, and a lower need for ELM, but comparable first intubation attempt success rate and overall intubation success rate compared with DL.

scholarly journals McGrath Video Laryngoscope May Take a Longer Intubation Time Than Macintosh Laryngoscope

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Prerana N. Shah ◽  
Kaveri Das
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Total Duration ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Laryngoscopic View ◽  
Lehane Grade ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Grade Ii ◽  
Grade Iii

Background. Video laryngoscopes provide better view and can improve ease of intubation compared with standard laryngoscopes. Methods. A prospective randomized study was done on 60 patients, 18 to 65 years old, comparing McGrath video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope. The aim was to compare the ease, efficacy, and usability of them during routine airway management. The primary endpoint was duration of intubation and the secondary endpoints were Cormack and Lehane grade of laryngoscopic view, number of intubation attempts, and incidence of complications. Results. There was an increase in total duration of intubation with McGrath video laryngoscope with 42.9 ± 19.5 seconds compared to Macintosh laryngoscope with 17.9 ± 4.6 seconds. In Macintosh group, 73.3% had grade I, 20% had grade II, and 6.7% had grade III Cormack Lehane view, while in McGrath group, 83.3% had grade I, 13.3% had grade II, and 3.3% had grade III. In McGrath group, 6 patients (20%) required more than 120 seconds to get intubated and only 73.3% were intubated in 1 attempt, while patients in Macintosh group had 100% successful intubation in 1 attempt. Pharyngeal trauma was seen with McGrath videolaryngoscopy. Conclusion. Duration of laryngoscopy, intubation, and total duration of intubation were significantly higher in McGrath group than in Macintosh group. McGrath group required a higher number of intubation attempts.

scholarly journals Comparison of i-Gel as a Conduit for Intubation between under Fiberoptic Guidance and Blind Endotracheal Intubation during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Simulation Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Hyun Young Choi ◽  
Wonhee Kim ◽  
Yong Soo Jang ◽  
Gu Hyun Kang ◽  
Jae Guk Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Macintosh Laryngoscope ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Intubation Time ◽  
Chest Compressions ◽  
Intubation Technique ◽  
Endotracheal Tubes ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Post Hoc

Purpose. This study aimed to compare intubation performances among i-gel blind intubation (IGI), i-gel bronchoscopic intubation (IBRI), and intubation using Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL) applying two kinds of endotracheal tube during chest compressions. We hypothesized that IGI using wire-reinforced silicone (WRS) tube could achieve endotracheal intubation most rapidly and successfully. Methods. In 23 emergency physicians, a prospective randomized crossover manikin study was conducted to examine the three intubation techniques using two kinds of endotracheal tubes. The primary outcome was the intubation time. The secondary outcome was the cumulative success rate for each intubation technique. A significant difference was considered when identifying p<0.05 between two devices or p<0.017 in post hoc analysis of the comparison among three devices. Results. The mean intubation time using IGI was shorter (p<0.017) than that of using IBRI and MCL in both endotracheal tubes (17.6 vs. 29.3 vs. 20.2 in conventional polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube; 14.6 vs. 27.4 vs. 19.9 in WRS tube; sec). There were no significant (p<0.05) differences between PVC and WRS tubes for each intubation technique. The intubation time to reach 100% cumulative success rate was also shorter in IGI (p<0.017) than that in IBRI and MCL in both PVC and WRS tubes. Conclusions. IGI was an equally successful and faster technique compared with IBRI or MCL regardless of the use of PVC or WRS tube. IGI might be an appropriate technique for emergent intubation by experienced intubators during chest compressions.

scholarly journals First attempt success of video versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation by ambulance nurses: a prospective observational study

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (5) ◽  
pp. 1039-1045 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wim Breeman ◽  
Mark G. Van Vledder ◽  
Michael H. J. Verhofstad ◽  
Albert Visser ◽  
Esther M. M. Van Lieshout
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Endotracheal Intubation ◽  
Direct Laryngoscopy ◽  
Prospective Observational Study ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Spontaneous Circulation ◽  
Video Laryngoscope ◽  
Video Laryngoscopy ◽  
Direct Laryngoscope ◽  
Positive Effect

Abstract Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the rate of first attempt success of endotracheal intubation performed by ambulance nurses in patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)  of 3 using video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy. Methods A prospective cohort study was conducted in a single, independent ambulance service. Twenty of a total of 65 nurse-staffed ambulances were equipped with a video laryngoscope; a classic direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) was available on all 65 ambulances. The primary outcome was first attempt success of the intubation. Secondary outcomes were overall success, time needed for intubation, adverse events, technical or environmental issues encountered, and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Ambulance nurses were asked if the intubation device had affected the outcome of the intubation. Results The first attempt success rate in the video laryngoscopy group [53 of 93 attempts (57%)] did not differ from that in the direct laryngoscopy group [61 of 126 (48%); p = 0.221]. However, the second attempt success rate was higher in the video laryngoscopy group [77/93 (83%) versus 80/126 (63%), p = 0.002]. The median time needed for the intubation (53 versus 56 s) was similar in both groups. Ambulance nurses more often expected a positive effect when performing endotracheal intubation with a video laryngoscope (n = 72, 81%) compared with a direct laryngoscope (n = 49, 52%; p < 0.001). Conclusion Although no significant effect on the first attempt success was found, video laryngoscopy did increase the overall success rate. Ambulance nurses had a more positive valuation of the video laryngoscope with respect to success chances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document