Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
https://bjan-sba.org/article/doi/10.1016/j.bjane.2018.04.008
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Scientific Article

Comparison of King Vision video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Comparação entre o videolaringoscópio King Vision e o laringoscópio Macintosh: um ensaio clínico prospectivo randomizado e controlado

Basar Erdivanli; Ahmet Sen; Sule Batcik; Tolga Koyuncu; Hizir Kazdal

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bjane.2018.04.008 Braz J Anesthesiol, vol.68, n5, p.499-506, 2018
PDF English
PDF Português
Downloads: 1
Views: 695

Abstract

Abstract Background and objectives We compared the efficiency of the King Vision video laryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope, when used by experienced anesthesiologists on adult patients with varying intubating conditions, in a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Methods A total of 388 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status of I or II, scheduled for general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. Each patient was intubated with both laryngoscopes successively, in a randomized order. Intubation success rate, time to best glottic view, time to intubation, time to ventilation, Cormack–Lehane laryngoscopy grades, and complications related to the laryngoscopy and intubation were analyzed. Results and conclusions First pass intubation success rates were similar for the King Vision and the Macintosh (96.6% vs. 94.3%, respectively, p > 0.05). King Vision resulted in a longer average time to glottic view (95% CI 0.5–1.4 s, p < 0.001), and time to intubation (95% CI 3–4.6 s, p < 0.001). The difference in time to intubation was similar when unsuccessful intubation attempts were excluded (95% CI 2.8–4.4 s, p < 0.001). Based on the modified Mallampati class at the preoperative visit, the King Vision improved the glottic view in significantly more patients (220 patients, 56.7%) compared with the Macintosh (180 patients, 46.4%) (p < 0.001). None of the patients had peripheral oxygen desaturation below 94%. Experienced anesthesiologists may obtain similar rates of first pass intubation success and airway trauma with both laryngoscopes. King Vision requires longer times to visualize the glottis and to intubate the trachea, but does not cause additional desaturation.

Keywords

Airway management, Direct laryngoscopy, Endotracheal intubation, General anesthesia, Video laryngoscopy

Resumo

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos Comparamos a eficiência do videolaringoscópio King Vision e do laringoscópio Macintosh, quando usados por anestesiologistas experientes em pacientes adultos com diferentes condições de intubação, em um estudo clínico prospectivo randomizado e controlado. Métodos Foram selecionados 388 pacientes com estado físico ASA I ou II (de acordo com a classificação da American Society of Anesthesiologists – ASA), programados para anestesia geral com intubação traqueal. Cada paciente foi intubado com ambos os laringoscópios sucessivamente, em uma ordem aleatória. A taxa de sucesso da intubação, o tempo até a melhor visibilização da glote, o tempo de intubação, o tempo de ventilação, a classificação de Cormack-Lehane (graus) e as complicações relacionadas à laringoscopia e intubação foram analisados. Resultados e conclusões As taxas de sucesso na intubação na primeira tentativa foram similares para o King Vision e o Macintosh (96,6% vs. 94,3%, respectivamente, p > 0,05). As médias dos tempos até a melhor visibilização da glote (IC 95% 0,5–1,4 s, p < 0,001) e de intubação (IC 95% 3–4,6 s, p < 0,001) foram maiores no King Vision. A diferença no tempo de intubação foi semelhante quando as tentativas malsucedidas de intubação foram excluídas (IC 95% 2,8–4,4 s, p < 0,001). Com base na classificação de Mallampati modificada na consulta pré-operatória, o King Vision melhorou significativamente a visibilização da glote em mais pacientes (220 pacientes, 56,7%) em comparação com o Macintosh (180 pacientes, 46,4%) (p < 0,001). Nenhum dos pacientes apresentou dessaturação periférica de oxigênio abaixo de 94%. Os anestesiologistas experientes podem obter taxas semelhantes de sucesso na primeira tentativa de intubação e de traumas das vias aéreas com ambos os laringoscópios. O King Vision requer tempos mais longos até a visibilização da glote e de intubação traqueal, mas não causa dessaturação adicional.

Palavras-chave

Manejo de vias aéreas, Laringoscopia direta, Intubação endotraqueal, Anestesia geral, Videolaringoscopia

References

Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:632-42.

Woodall NM, Benger JR, Harper JS. Airway management complications during anaesthesia, in intensive care units and in emergency departments in the UK. Curr Anaesth Crit Care. 2012;2:58-64.

Metzner J, Posner KL, Lam MS. Closed claims’ analysis. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2011;25:263-76.

Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R. Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:629-36.

Gaszynska E, Gaszynski T. The King Vision video laryngoscope for awake intubation: series of cases and literature review. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2014;10:475-8.

Akihisa Y, Maruyama K, Koyama Y. Comparison of intubation performance between the King Vision and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice personnel: a randomized, crossover manikin study. J Anesth. 2014;28:51-7.

Murphy LD, Kovacs GJ, Reardon PM. Comparison of the King Vision video laryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope. J Emerg Med. 2014;47:239-46.

Yun BJ, Brown CA, Grazioso CJ. Comparison of video, optical, and direct laryngoscopy by experienced tactical paramedics. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18:442-5.

Asai T. Videolaryngoscopes: do they truly have roles in difficult airways?. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:515-7.

Miceli L, Cecconi M, Tripi G. Evaluation of new laryngoscope blade for tracheal intubation Truview EVO2: a manikin study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2008;25:446-9.

Ezri T, Warters RD, Szmuk P. The incidence of class “zero” airway and the impact of mallampati score, age, sex, and body mass index on prediction of laryngoscopy grade. Anesth Analg. 2001;93:1073-5.

Jarvis JL, McClure SF, Johns D. EMS intubation improves with King Vision video laryngoscopy. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19:482-9.

Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airwayan updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:251-70.

Schoettker P, Corniche J. The airview study: comparison of intubation conditions and ease between the airtraq-airview and the King Vision. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:284142.

Cortellazzi P, Caldiroli D, Byrne A. Defining and developing expertise in tracheal intubation using a GlideScope (R) for anaesthetists with expertise in Macintosh direct laryngoscopy: an in-vivo longitudinal study. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:290-5.

Cierniak M, Timler D, Wieczorek A. The comparison of the technical parameters in endotracheal intubation devices: the Cmac, the Vividtrac, the McGrath Mac and the Kingvision. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:379-87.

Alvis BD, Hester D, Watson D. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath MAC video laryngoscope with the King Vision video laryngoscope in adult patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82:30-5.

Asai T, Saito T, Okuda Y. In reply: efficacy of a new videolaryngoscope; what we should assess?. J Anesth. 2013;27:474-5.

Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation: a cochrane systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2017;119:369-83.

Pieters BMA, Mass EHA, Knape JTA. Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in patients with known difficult airways: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:1532-41.

Troy AM, Hutchinson RC, Easy WR. Tracheal intubating conditions using propofol and remifentanil target-controlled infusions. Anaesthesia. 2002;57:1204-7.

Carassiti M, Zanzonico R, Cecchini S. Force and pressure distribution using Macintosh and GlideScope laryngoscopes in normal and difficult airways: a manikin study. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108:146-51.

5dcb0f910e8825ed7e03b87b rba Articles
Links & Downloads
2352-2291 (Electronic) 0104-0014 (Printed)
Braz J Anesthesiol ©2024 All rights reserved.

Braz J Anesthesiol

Share this page
Page Sections