Limits...
Comparison of McGrath ® Series 5 video laryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope: A prospective, randomised trial in patients with normal airways

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective:: The McGrath Video laryngoscope is a newly developed video laryngoscope that significantly improves laryngeal view and facilitates endotracheal intubation in difficult airways. However in patients with normal airway that is not mentioned before. The aim of this study was to compare the McGrath video laryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with normal airways.

Methods:: A total of 100 patients requiring orotracheal intubation, were randomized to either having intubation with the McGrath video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope. The primary outcome was the laryngoscopy view using percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score. Secondary outcomes included Cormack and Lehane grading system, time to intubation, number of failed intubations, number of attempts before successful intubation and hemodynamic parameters during intubation.

Results:: POGO scores were significantly higher in the McGrath group compared with the Macintosh group (p<0.001) despite time to successful intubation was similar in both groups. The McGrath video laryngoscope provided more Grade-I laryngoscopic views than the Macintosh laryngoscope (p<0.001). Number of more than one attempts in order to achieve success was significantly higher in the Macintosh group (p=0.001). The number of minor complications were significantly higher in the Macintosh group (p=0.004). There were no significant changes in hemodynamic responses between the two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion:: McGrath video laryngoscope allows patients with normal airways to achieve higher POGO scores and significantly more Grade-I laryngoscopic views when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.

No MeSH data available.


CONSORT flowchart detailing patient recruitment.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5017093&req=5

Figure 1: CONSORT flowchart detailing patient recruitment.

Mentions: The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups, as shown in Table-I. The median time taken to perform successful intubation was similar in the McGrath group when compared with the Macintosh group (mean 18.93 vs 19.68 s, median 18 vs 18 s, IQR 15-21.5 vs 15-23; Fig.1).


Comparison of McGrath ® Series 5 video laryngoscope with Macintosh laryngoscope: A prospective, randomised trial in patients with normal airways
CONSORT flowchart detailing patient recruitment.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5017093&req=5

Figure 1: CONSORT flowchart detailing patient recruitment.
Mentions: The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups, as shown in Table-I. The median time taken to perform successful intubation was similar in the McGrath group when compared with the Macintosh group (mean 18.93 vs 19.68 s, median 18 vs 18 s, IQR 15-21.5 vs 15-23; Fig.1).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective:: The McGrath Video laryngoscope is a newly developed video laryngoscope that significantly improves laryngeal view and facilitates endotracheal intubation in difficult airways. However in patients with normal airway that is not mentioned before. The aim of this study was to compare the McGrath video laryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with normal airways.

Methods:: A total of 100 patients requiring orotracheal intubation, were randomized to either having intubation with the McGrath video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope. The primary outcome was the laryngoscopy view using percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score. Secondary outcomes included Cormack and Lehane grading system, time to intubation, number of failed intubations, number of attempts before successful intubation and hemodynamic parameters during intubation.

Results:: POGO scores were significantly higher in the McGrath group compared with the Macintosh group (p<0.001) despite time to successful intubation was similar in both groups. The McGrath video laryngoscope provided more Grade-I laryngoscopic views than the Macintosh laryngoscope (p<0.001). Number of more than one attempts in order to achieve success was significantly higher in the Macintosh group (p=0.001). The number of minor complications were significantly higher in the Macintosh group (p=0.004). There were no significant changes in hemodynamic responses between the two groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion:: McGrath video laryngoscope allows patients with normal airways to achieve higher POGO scores and significantly more Grade-I laryngoscopic views when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope.

No MeSH data available.