Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Anesthesiology
Published in: BMC Anesthesiology 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Transfer of skills and comparison of performance between king vision® video laryngoscope and macintosh blade following an AHA airway management course

Authors: Lukas E. Wolf, José A. Aguirre, Christian Vogt, Christian Keller, Alain Borgeat, Heinz R. Bruppacher

Published in: BMC Anesthesiology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To potentially optimize intubation skill teaching in an American Heart Association® Airway Management Course® for novices, we investigated the transfer of skills from video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy and vice versa using King Vision® and Macintosh blade laryngoscopes respectively.

Methods

Ninety volunteers (medical students, residents and staff physicians) without prior intubation experience were randomized into three groups to receive intubation training with either King Vision® or Macintosh blade or both. Afterwards they attempted intubation on two human cadavers with both tools. The primary outcome was skill transfer from video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy assessed by first attempt success rates within 60 s. Secondary outcomes were skill transfer in the opposite direction, the efficacy of teaching both tools, and the success rates and esophageal intubation rates of Macintosh blade versus King Vision®.

Results

Performance with the Macintosh blade was identical following training with either Macintosh blade or King Vision® (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.5–2.6). Performance with the King Vision® was significantly better in the group that was trained on it (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2–5.9). Success rate within 60 s with Macintosh blade was 48% compared to 52% with King Vision® (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.4–2.0). Rate of esophageal intubations with Macintosh blade was significantly higher (17% versus 4%, OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.1–23).

Conclusions

We found better skill transfer from King Vision® to Macintosh blade than vice versa and fewer esophageal intubations with video laryngoscopy. For global skill improvement in an airway management course for novices, teaching only video laryngoscopy may be sufficient. However, success rates were low for both devices.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Healy DW, Maties O, Hovord D, Kheterpal S. A systematic review of the role of videolaryngoscopy in successful orotracheal intubation. BMC Anesth. 2012;12:32.CrossRef
2.
Behringer EC, Kristensen MS. Evidence for benefit vs novelty in new intubation equipment. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:s57–64.CrossRef
3.
Burnett AM, Frascone RJ, Wewerka SS, et al. Comparison of success rates between two video laryngoscope systems used in a prehospital clinical trial. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18:231–8.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Jarvis JL, McClure SF, Johns D. EMS Intubation Improves with king vision video laryngoscopy. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2015;19:482–9.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Silverberg MJ, Li N, Acquah SO, Kory PD. Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2015;43:636–41.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Hasegawa K, Shigemitsu K, Hagiwara Y, et al. Association between repeated intubation attempts and adverse events in emergency departments: an analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60:749–54.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Breckwoldt J, Klemstein S, Brunne B, Schnitzer L, Mochmann HC, Arntz HR. Difficult prehospital endotracheal intubation - predisposing factors in a physician based EMS. Resuscitation. 2011;82:1519–24.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Nouruzi-Sedeh P, Schumann M, Groeben H. Laryngoscopy via Macintosh blade versus GlideScope: success rate and time for endotracheal intubation in untrained medical personnel. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:32–7.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Trimmel H, Kreutziger J, Fitzka R, et al. Use of the glidescope ranger video laryngoscope for emergency intubation in the prehospital setting: a randomized control trial. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(7):e470–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kleine-Brueggeney M, Greif R, Schoettker P, Savoldelli GL, Nabecker S, Theiler LG. Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116(5):670–9.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Akihisa Y, Maruyama K, Koyama Y, Yamada R, Ogura A, Andoh T. 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.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Ruetzler K, Imach S, Weiss M, Haas T, Schmidt AR. Comparison of five video laryngoscopes and conventional direct laryngoscopy : investigations on simple and simulated difficult airways on the intubation trainer. Anaesthesist. 2015;64:513–9.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Ray DC, Billington C, Kearns PK, et al. A comparison of McGrath and Macintosh laryngoscopes in novice users: a manikin study. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:1207–10.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Bakshi SG, Vanjari VS, Divatia JV. A prospective, randomised, clinical study to compare the use of McGrath(®), Truview(®) and Macintosh laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation by novice and experienced Anaesthesiologists. Indian J Anaesth. 2015;59:421–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Wilke HJ, Werner K, Häussler K, Reinehr M, Böckers TM. Thiel-fixation preserves the non-linear load-deformation characteristic of spinal motion segments, but increases their flexibility. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2011;4:2133–7.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Gu Y, Robert Y, Kovacs G, et al. A deliberately restricted laryngeal view with the GlideScope® video laryngoscope is associated with faster and easier tracheal intubation when compared with a full glottic view: a randomized clinical trial. Can J Anaesth. 2016;63(8):928–37.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Mulcaster J, Mills J, Hung O, et al. Laryngoscopic intubation: learning and performance. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:23–7.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Van Merriënboer JJ, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010;44:85–93.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Niforopoulou P, Pantazopoulos I, Demestiha T, Koudouna E, Xanthos T. Video-laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: a topical review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:1050–61.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Murphy L, Kovacs G, Reardon P, Law JA. Comparison of the king vision video laryngoscope with the macintosh laryngoscope. J Emerg Med. 2014;47:239–46.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Shimada M, Hirabayashi Y. Video laryngoscopy reduces the incidence of erroneous esophageal intubation: a meta-analysis. Masui. 2015;64:557–61.PubMed
22.
Deakin CD, Nolan JP, Soar J, et al. European resuscitation council guidelines for resuscitation 2010 section 4. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation. 2010;81:1305–52.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Neumar RW, Otto CW, Link MS, et al. Part 8: adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2010;122:s729–67.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Hohlrieder M, Brimacombe J, von Goedecke A, Keller C. Guided insertion of the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway is superior to conventional tracheal intubation by first-month anesthesia residents after brief manikin-only training. Anesth Analg. 2006;103:458–62.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Timmermann A, Russo SG, Crozier TA, et al. Novices ventilate and intubate quicker and safer via intubating laryngeal mask than by conventional bag-mask ventilation and laryngoscopy. Anesthesiology. 2007;107:570–6.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Alvis BD, Hester D, Watson D, Higgins M, St Jacques P. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath MAC video laryngoscope with the king vision video laryngoscope in adult patients. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82:30–5.PubMed
Metadata
Title
Transfer of skills and comparison of performance between king vision® video laryngoscope and macintosh blade following an AHA airway management course
Authors
Lukas E. Wolf
José A. Aguirre
Christian Vogt
Christian Keller
Alain Borgeat
Heinz R. Bruppacher
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Anesthesiology / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2253
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-016-0296-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Anesthesiology 1/2017 Go to the issue

Research article

Pediatric supraglottic airway devices in clinical practice: A prospective observational study

Research article

The effect of an electronic cognitive aid on the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction during caesarean section: a prospective randomised simulation study

Research article

Staggering the dose of sugammadex lowers risks for severe emergence cough: a randomized control trial

Research article

The optimum sevoflurane concentration for supraglottic airway device Blockbuster™ insertion with spontaneous breathing in obese patients: a prospective observational study

Case report

Surgical anesthesia with a combination of T12 paravertebral block and lumbar plexus, sacral plexus block for hip replacement in ankylosing spondylitis: CARE-compliant 4 case reports

Review

Preparing for the unexpected: special considerations and complications after sugammadex administration