Is Duration of Endotracheal Tube Intubation Using a Video Laryngoscope Different with a Direct Laryngoscope in Elective Surgery Patients During Pandemic Covid-19?

Introduction: Aerosol box is a usefull tools to prevent aerosol and droplet contaminations during laryngoscopy and intubation in COVID-19 pandemic. Video laryngoscope is recommended during this era to increase the operator and patient’s distance during the procedure. However, many anesthesiologists still use direct laryngoscopes due to their availability and familiarity. This study aims to compare endotracheal tube intubation with video laryngoscope compared to direct laryngoscope in elective surgery patients. Methods: This study was a quasi-experimental study. The sample size in each group (video and direct laryngoscope) was 35 subjects. The primary outcome of this study was to compare the duration of intubation between video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope, while the secondary outcome was to evaluate complications such as broken teeth and sore throat 24 hours post intubation. Results: Direct laryngoscope had shorter intubation duration than video laryngoscope [12.3 (8.9-21.0) vs 13.3 (11.4 – 21.6; p =0.07) respectively. Two complication reported on video laryngoscope groups. Conclusion: Duration of ETT intubation using a direct laryngoscope was shorter during intubation with aerosol box compared to video laryngoscope in elective surgery patients. The box which was being used may limit the space of movement making it difficult to intubate.

Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial

A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19–26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17–21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5–38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21–29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.

Time to intubation with McGrath™ videolaryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope in powered air-purifying respirator: a randomised controlled trial

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic, multiple guidelines have recommended the videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation. However, there is no evidence that videolaryngoscope reduces time to tracheal intubation, which is important for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure. Methods: To simulate intubation of COVID-19 patients, we randomised 28 elective surgical patients to be intubated with either the McGrath™ MAC videolaryngoscope or the direct laryngoscope by specialist anaesthetists donning 3M™ Jupiter™ powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) and N95 masks. Primary outcome was time to intubation. Results: The median (IQR) times to intubation were 61s (37–63 s) and 41.5s (37–56 s) in the videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope groups respectively (p = 0.35). The closest mean (SD) distances between the anaesthetist and the patient during intubation were 21.6 cm (4.8 cm) and 17.6 cm (5.3 cm) in the videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope groups, respectively (p = 0.045). There were no significant differences in the median intubation difficulty scale scores, proportion of successful intubation at first laryngoscopic attempt and proportion of intubations requiring adjuncts. Intubations for all the patients were successful with no adverse event. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the time to intubation by specialist anaesthetists who were donned in PAPR and N95 masks on elective surgical patients with either the McGrath™ videolaryngoscope or direct laryngoscope. The distance between the anaesthetist and patient was significantly further with the videolaryngoscope. The direct laryngoscope could be an equal alternative to videolaryngoscope for specialist anaesthetists when resources are limited or disrupted due to the pandemic.

Flexible endoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for localising impacted pharyngeal foreign bodies in emergency department: A randomised cross-over manikin pilot study

Background: Direct laryngoscopy is often poorly tolerated in patients with foreign body ingestion. The use of flexible endoscopes, which are reported to be better tolerated, was described. However, studies on endoscopy usage by emergency physicians are lacking. Objective: This study evaluates whether using a bronchoscope is as effective as the direct laryngoscopy for localising pharyngeal foreign bodies by emergency physicians. Methods: This was a randomised cross-over manikin study conducted on 32 emergency physicians. Four foreign bodies were placed at the oropharynx, vallecula, arytenoid and post-cricoid area of a manikin. Participants, being randomised into two groups, examined the pharynx with a bronchoscope and a direct laryngoscope in designated orders. The primary outcome was the complete visualisation rate defined as visualising all the four foreign bodies within the time limit. Secondary outcomes included participants-rated difficulty scores, device preferences, the time needed for complete visualisation and cumulative success rates. Results: Complete visualisation rate was significantly higher using the bronchoscope (93.8%) than the direct laryngoscope (62.5%) p = 0.02. The overall difficulty score was lower using the bronchoscope (median 4, interquartile range: 3–5) than the direct laryngoscope (median 6, interquartile range: 5–8), p < 0.001. The bronchoscope was the preferred method for overall examination (71.9%) over the direct laryngoscope (28.1%), p = 0.001. There were no significant differences in times needed for complete examination for the bronchoscope (median 73.6 s, interquartile range: 54.7–97.7 s) and the direct laryngoscope (median 82.2 s, interquartile range: 40.1–120 s), p = 0.9, and cumulative success rates, p = 0.081. Conclusion: The bronchoscope was associated with an increased complete visualisation rate and was the easier and preferred method for pharyngeal examination.

Comparison of learning direct laryngoscopy using a McGrath videolaryngoscope as a direct versus indirect laryngoscope: a randomized controlled trial

Objective Tracheal intubation using a direct laryngoscope is difficult to teach. The McGrath videolaryngoscope, a Macintosh-like device with a camera, can be used as a direct laryngoscope to educate novices under supervision using the screen. We compared the effect on Macintosh laryngoscopy skills following training with a McGrath videolaryngoscope as a direct versus indirect laryngoscope. Methods Thirty-seven participants were randomized into direct and indirect groups according to the training method using a McGrath videolaryngoscope. Participants attempted Macintosh direct laryngoscopy in normal and difficult airway scenarios. The primary endpoint was the intubation time, and the rate of successful intubation, dental trauma, and difficulty were secondary outcomes. Results The intubation time after education decreased significantly in both groups and was significantly shorter in the direct group than in the indirect group across time. The difficulty degree in the direct group was lower than that in the indirect group across time; however, the rate of dental trauma was not significantly different. Conclusion Both direct and indirect laryngoscopy using a McGrath videolaryngoscope improved the performance of Macintosh direct laryngoscopy in novices, while direct laryngoscopy using a McGrath videolaryngoscope demonstrated better educational effects than indirect laryngoscopy. Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03471975).

Systematic Review Comparison of Endotracheal Intubation Success Rate Using McGrath® Mac Videolaryngoscope with Direct Laryngoscope (Macintosh): A Manikin Studies

Introduction: McGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope is a single-handed device designed to facilitate intubation in patients both in patients with normal airway conditions (without any complications) or airway conditions with complications such as cervical spine and/or anatomic abnormalities. Objective: This study aims to compare McGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope using Macintosh blades as learning material or study simulators for medical personnel (including anesthesiologist and paramedics) and novice operator (medical students). Method: this study is a systematic review using the PRISMA method which was carried out systematically. Data was collected through Pubmed, direct science, EBSCOHost, and Proquest using the keywords ‘airway management ', ‘laryngoscopy', and 'manikin'. Journal included based on published publication time between 2008 and 2020, a study using SimMan Laerdal Airway manikin, a journal discussing intubation using McGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope and direct laryngoscope with Macintosh blades here, where it is normal airway (without complications) and difficult airway. Results: 1556 journals were collected through 4 journal search sites and then carried out a screening process for the publication year approved in 2008 to 2020. Four studies use adult manikin SimMan Laerdal Airway including 247 participants were included in this systematic review. Conclusion: Based on journals that have been reviewed, McGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope provides better and superior results compared to Macintosh in terms of the success rate and visualization of glottis. Also, the intubation time using McGrath® MAC videolaryngoscope is shorten compared to Macintosh both on the normal airway (without complication) and difficult airway. The participants (medical personnel and novice operators) in all studies that reviewed prefer to use McGrath® Mac videolaryngoscope instead of using direct laryngoscope with Macintosh blade for Endotracheal Intubation mainly used for learning or study simulators.