Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Brazilian Journal of Anesthesiology
Original Investigation

Comparison of the intubation success rate between the intubating catheter and videolaryngoscope in difficult airways: a prospective randomized trial

Comparação da taxa de sucesso de intubação entre o cateter de intubação e o videolaringoscópio em vias aéreas difíceis: um estudo prospectivo randomizado  

Aysun Ozdemirkan; Ozkan Onal; Irem Gumus Ozcan; Emine Aslanlar; Ali Saltali; Mehmet Sari; Cansu Ciftci; Hasan Huseyin Bayram

Downloads: 0
Views: 814


Background: Several devices and algorithms have already been examined and compared for difficult airway management. However, there is no existing study comparing the success of the Intubating Catheter (IC) and the Videolaryngoscope (VL) in patients who are difficult to intubate. We aimed to compare Frova IC and McGrath VL in terms of intubation success rates in patients with difficult intubation.

Methods: This prospective, randomized study was performed in an university hospital. Patients who underwent an operation under general anesthesia and whom airway management process was deemed difficult were included in this study. Patients were randomly divided into two groups by envelopes containing a number: the intubating catheter group (Group IC), intubated using the Frova IC, and the videolaryngoscope group (Group VL), intubated using the McGrath VL. Study data were collected by a technician who was blind to the study groups and the type of device used in the intubation procedure.

Results: A total of 49 patients with difficult airway were included in the study, including 25 patients in the Frova IC Group and 24 patients in the McGrath VL Group. The rate of successful intubation was determined to be 88% in Group IC and 66% in Group VL (p = 0.074). The mean duration of intubation attempt in Group VL was 44.62 seconds, whereas in Group IC, it was 51.12 seconds (p = 0.593). Group VL was found to have a significantly lower Cormack-Lehane grade compared to Group IC (p < 0.001).

Conclusion: Frova IC is a candidate to be an indispensable instrument in terms of cost-effectiveness in clinics such as anesthesia and emergency medicine, where difficult intubation cases are frequently encountered. However, the combination of Frova IC and McGrath VL seems to be more successful in difficult intubation situations, so future studies should focus on using these two devices together.


Airway management, Catheters, Equipment and supplies, Intubation, Intratracheal


Introdução: Vários dispositivos e algoritmos já foram examinados e comparados para o manejo de vias aéreas difíceis. No entanto, não existe estudo comparando o sucesso do Cateter de Intubação (CI) e do Videolaringoscópio (VL) em pacientes de difícil intubação. Nosso objetivo foi comparar o CI Frova e o VL McGrath em termos de taxas de sucesso de intubação em pacientes com intubação difícil.

Métodos: Estudo prospectivo e randomizado realizado em um hospital universitário. Pacientes operados sob anestesia geral e cujo manejo das vias aéreas foi considerado difícil foram incluídos neste estudo. Os pacientes foram divididos aleatoriamente em dois grupos por envelopes contendo um número: o grupo cateter de intubação (Grupo CI), intubado com o CI Frova, e o grupo videolaringoscópio (Grupo VL), intubado com o VL McGrath. Os dados do estudo foram coletados por um técnico que desconhecia os grupos de estudo e o tipo de dispositivo utilizado no procedimento de intubação.

Resultados: Um total de 49 pacientes com via aérea difícil foram incluídos no estudo, incluindo 25 pacientes no Grupo CI Frova e 24 pacientes no Grupo VL McGrath. A taxa de intubação bem-sucedida foi determinada em 88% no Grupo IC e 66% no Grupo VL (p = 0,074). O tempo médio de tentativa de intubação no Grupo VL foi de 44,62 segundos, enquanto no Grupo CI foi de 51,12 segundos (p = 0,593). O Grupo VL apresentou um grau de Cormack-Lehane significativamente menor em comparação ao Grupo CI (p <0,001).

Conclusão: CI Frova é candidato a instrumento indispensável em termos de custo-efetividade em clínicas como anestesia e medicina de emergência, onde casos difíceis de intubação são frequentemente encontrados. No entanto, a combinação de CI Frova IC e VL McGrath parece ter mais sucesso em situações de intubação difíceis, portanto, estudos futuros devem se concentrar no uso desses dois dispositivos juntos.


Manejo das vias aéreas, Cateteres, Equipamentos e suprimentos, Intubação, Intratraqueal


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

2 Zaouter C, Calderon J, Hemmerling TM. Videolaryngoscopy as a new standard of care. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:181-3.

3 Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia. 1984;39:1105-11.

4 Taylor AM, Peck M, Launcelott S, et al. The McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomised, controlled trial in patients with a simulated difficult airway. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:142-7.

5 Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Use of the McGrath videolaryngoscope in the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:116-9.

6 Asai T, Murao K, Shingu K. Training method of applying pressure on the neck for laryngoscopy: use of a videolaryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2003;58:602-3.

7 Lee J, Kim JY, Kang SY, et al. Stylet angulation for routine endotracheal intubation with McGrath videolaryngoscope. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:6152.

8 Noppens RR, Möbus S, Heid F, et al. Evaluation of the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope after failed direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:716-20.

9 Messa MJ, Kupas DF, Dunham DL. Comparison of bougie-assisted intubation with traditional endotracheal intubation in a simulated difficult airway. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011;15:30-3.

10 Hodzovic I, Latto IP, Wilkes AR, et al. Evaluation of Frova, single-use intubation introducer, in a manikin. Comparison with Eschmann multiple-use introducer and Portex single-use introducer. Anaesthesia. 2004;59:811-6.

11 Hodzovic I, Wilkes AR, Stacey M, et al. Evaluation of clinical effectiveness of the Frova single-use tracheal tube introducer. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:189-94.

12 Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:439-43.

13 Wetsch WA, Spelten O, Hellmich M, et al. Comparison of different video laryngoscopes for emergency intubation in a standardized airway manikin with immobilized cervical spine by experienced anaesthetists. A randomized, controlled crossover trial. Resuscitation. 2012;83:740-5.

14 Theiler L, Hermann K, Schoettker P, et al. SWIVIT - Swiss video-intubation trial evaluating video-laryngoscopes in a simulated difficult airway scenario: study protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial in Switzerland. Trials. 2013;14:94.

15 Onal O, Gumus I, Ozdemirkan A, et al. A comparative randomized trial of intubation success in difficult intubation cases: the use of a Frova intubation catheter versus a Bonfils intubation fiberoscope. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2019;14:486-94.

16 Aziz Mf, Abrons Ro, Cattano D, et al. First-attempt intubation success of video laryngoscopy in patients with anticipated difficult direct laryngoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the C-MAC D-bladeversus the glidescope in a mixed provider and diverse patient population. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:740-50.

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

18 Frova G. Do videolaryngoscopes have a new role in the SIAARTI difficult airway management algorithm? Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:637-40.

19 Healy DW, Maties O, Hovord D, et al. A systematic review of the role of videolaryngoscopy in successful orotracheal intubation. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;14:32.

20 Gregory P, Woollard M, Lighton D, et al. Comparison of malleable stylet and reusable and disposable bougies by paramedics in a simulated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:371-6.

21 Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society intubation guidelines working group. Difficult Airway Society 2015 Guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:827-48.

22 Janakiraman C, Hodzovic I, Reddy S, et al. Evaluation of tracheal tube introducers in simulated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:309-14.

23 Gómez-Ríos MÁ, Pinegger S, de Carrillo Mantilla M, et al. A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq® NT, McGrath® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2016;66:289-97.

24 Wallace CD, Foulds LT, McLeod GA, et al. A comparison of the ease of tracheal intubation using a McGrath MAC laryngoscope and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:1281-5.

25 Suppan L, Tramèr MR, Niquille M, et al. Alternative intubation techniques vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in patients with cervical spine immobilization: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:27-36.

Submitted date:

Accepted date:

60b0f1a5a953955ab2007e83 rba Articles

Braz J Anesthesiol

Share this page
Page Sections