PMID- 22677878
OWN - NLM
STAT- MEDLINE
DCOM- 20121023
LR  - 20220410
IS  - 1471-6771 (Electronic)
IS  - 0007-0912 (Linking)
VI  - 109
IP  - 3
DP  - 2012 Sep
TI  - Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the 
      C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult 
      airways.
PG  - 439-43
LID - 10.1093/bja/aes145 [doi]
AB  - BACKGROUND: Difficult and failed intubations, although rarely encountered, are 
      major causes of morbidity and mortality in the current anaesthetic practice. To 
      reduce the incidence of difficult and failed intubations, several devices 
      including the recently developed videolaryngoscopes are available. This 
      randomized controlled study aims to compare the use of the McGrath 
      videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in adult patients with 
      potential difficult airways. METHODS: A total of 130 patients with the Mallampati 
      grade of >/=3, requiring orotracheal intubation, were randomized to either having 
      intubation with the McGrath videolaryngoscope or the C-MAC videolaryngoscope. The 
      primary outcome was time to intubation. The laryngoscopic view, the number of 
      intubation attempts, the proportion of intubation success, the ease of 
      intubation, the haemodynamic responses to intubation, and the incidence of any 
      complications were also recorded. RESULTS: Time to successful intubation with the 
      C-MAC videolaryngoscope was shorter when compared with the McGrath 
      videolaryngoscope 50 s [inter-quartile range (IQR) 38-70] vs 67 s (IQR 49-108), 
      P<0.001, despite the McGrath videolaryngoscope providing significantly more 
      grade 1 laryngoscopic views. The C-MAC videolaryngoscope also resulted in 
      significantly fewer intubation attempts and greater ease of intubation when 
      compared with the McGrath videolaryngoscope. There were no statistically 
      significant differences in the proportion of intubation success, the number of 
      complications, and the changes in haemodynamic responses between the two 
      videolaryngoscopes. CONCLUSIONS: The C-MAC videolaryngoscope allowed a quicker 
      intubation time, fewer intubation attempts, and greater ease of intubation 
      compared with the McGrath videolaryngoscope when used in patients with the 
      Mallampati grade of >/=3.
FAU - Ng, I
AU  - Ng I
AD  - Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan 
      Street, Parkville, VIC 3050, Australia. irene.ng@mh.org.au
FAU - Hill, A L
AU  - Hill AL
FAU - Williams, D L
AU  - Williams DL
FAU - Lee, K
AU  - Lee K
FAU - Segal, R
AU  - Segal R
LA  - eng
PT  - Comparative Study
PT  - Journal Article
PT  - Randomized Controlled Trial
PT  - Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
DEP - 20120607
PL  - England
TA  - Br J Anaesth
JT  - British journal of anaesthesia
JID - 0372541
SB  - IM
MH  - Adult
MH  - Humans
MH  - Intubation, Intratracheal/*methods
MH  - *Laryngoscopes
MH  - Video Recording
EDAT- 2012/06/09 06:00
MHDA- 2012/10/24 06:00
CRDT- 2012/06/09 06:00
PHST- 2012/06/09 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2012/06/09 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2012/10/24 06:00 [medline]
AID - S0007-0912(17)32112-8 [pii]
AID - 10.1093/bja/aes145 [doi]
PST - ppublish
SO  - Br J Anaesth. 2012 Sep;109(3):439-43. doi: 10.1093/bja/aes145. Epub 2012 Jun 7.