» Articles » PMID: 27896321

Comparison of the C-MAC Video Laryngoscope to the Macintosh Laryngoscope for Intubation of Blunt Trauma Patients in the ED

Overview
Specialty Emergency Medicine
Date 2016 Nov 30
PMID 27896321
Citations 24
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: We aimed to compare the performance of the C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC) to the Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation of blunt trauma patients in the ED.

Material And Methods: This was a prospective randomized study. The primary outcome measure is overall successful intubation. Secondary outcome measures are first attempt successful intubation, Cormack-Lehane (CL) grade, and indicators of the reasons for unsuccessful intubation at the first attempt with each device. Adult patients who suffered from blunt trauma and required intubation were randomized to video laryngoscopy with C-MAC device or direct laryngoscopy (DL).

Results: During a 17-month period, a total of 150 trauma intubations were performed using a C-MAC and DL. Baseline characteristics of patients were similar between the C-MAC and DL group. Overall success for the C-MAC was 69/75 (92%, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.96) while for the DL it was 72/75 (96%, 95% CI 0.88 to 0.98). First attempt success for the C-MAC was 47/75 (62.7%, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.72) while for the DL it was 44/75 patients (58.7%, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.69). The mean time to achieve successful intubation was 33.4 ± 2.5 s for the C-MAC versus 42.4 ± 5.1 s for the DL (p = 0.93). There was a statistically significant difference between the DL and C-MAC in terms of visualizing the glottic opening and esophageal intubation in favor of the C-MAC (p = 0.002 and p = 0.013 respectively).

Discussion And Conclusion: The overall success rates were similar. The C-MAC demonstrated improved glottic view and decrease in esophageal intubation rate.

Citing Articles

Comparison of dental force applied during endotracheal intubation with hyper-angulated and macintosh-type video laryngoscopy blades used by emergency medicine trainees: A randomized cross-over manikin study.

Karabacak A, Ozturan I, Sefoglu O, Dogan N, Yaka E, Yilmaz S Turk J Emerg Med. 2024; 24(3):151-157.

PMID: 39108683 PMC: 11299842. DOI: 10.4103/tjem.tjem_18_24.


Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful emergency endotracheal intubations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Alsabri M, Abdelwahab O, Elsnhory A, Diab R, Sabesan V, Ayyan M Syst Rev. 2024; 13(1):85.

PMID: 38475918 PMC: 10935931. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02500-9.


Comparison of Time to Intubation of a Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tube Utilizing C-MAC® Versus GlideScope® Versus Macintosh Blade: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study.

Rajagopal S, Gardner R, Swanson E, Kim S, Sondekoppam R, Ueda K Cureus. 2024; 15(12):e50523.

PMID: 38222170 PMC: 10787594. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.50523.


Video versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Araujo B, Rivera A, Martins S, Abreu R, Cassa P, Silva M Crit Care. 2024; 28(1):1.

PMID: 38167459 PMC: 10759602. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-023-04727-9.


Comparison of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for intubation success in critically ill patients: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.

Kim J, Ahn C, Kim W, Lim T, Jang B, Cho Y Front Med (Lausanne). 2023; 10:1193514.

PMID: 37358992 PMC: 10289197. DOI: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1193514.


References
1.
Platts-Mills T, Campagne D, Chinnock B, Snowden B, Glickman L, Hendey G . A comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med. 2009; 16(9):866-71. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00492.x. View

2.
Jungbauer A, Schumann M, Brunkhorst V, Borgers A, Groeben H . Expected difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective comparison of direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2009; 102(4):546-50. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aep013. View

3.
Bair A, Olmsted K, Brown 3rd C, Barker T, Pallin D, Walls R . Assessment of the storz video Macintosh laryngoscope for use in difficult airways: A human simulator study. Acad Emerg Med. 2010; 17(10):1134-7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00867.x. View

4.
Michailidou M, OKeeffe T, Mosier J, Friese R, Joseph B, Rhee P . A comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for the emergency intubation of trauma patients. World J Surg. 2014; 39(3):782-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00268-014-2845-z. View

5.
Su Y, Chen C, Lee Y, Lee J, Lin K . Comparison of video laryngoscopes with direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011; 28(11):788-95. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32834a34f3. View