Premium
Comparative evaluation of C MAC and Truview picture capture device for endotracheal intubation in neonates and infants undergoing elective surgeries: A prospective randomized control trial
Author(s) -
Gupta Anju,
Kamal Geeta,
Gupta Aikta,
Sehgal Nidhi,
Bhatla Sapna,
Kumar Rajeev
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
pediatric anesthesia
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.704
H-Index - 82
eISSN - 1460-9592
pISSN - 1155-5645
DOI - 10.1111/pan.13524
Subject(s) - medicine , intubation , glottis , anesthesia , tracheal intubation , airway management , elective surgery , airway , laryngoscopes , endotracheal intubation , randomized controlled trial , laryngoscopy , prospective cohort study , insertion time , surgery , larynx
Summary Background Videolaryngoscopy has an established role in difficult airway management in adults. However, there is limited literature to support their efficacy in children. The Truview Picture Capture Device has shown promising results for endotracheal intubation in infants in the past. The CMAC videolaryngoscope has launched its novel infant Miller blade, but its performance has not been assessed clinically for routine intubation in infants and neonates. We hypothesized that the CMAC videolaryngoscope would reduce the total time to intubation as compared to the Truview Picture Capture Device in neonates and infants. Methods After parental informed consent, 80 prospective infants posted for surgical procedures under general anesthesia were randomized to undergo intubation with either of the two. The two videolaryngoscopes were also compared in terms of time required for glottis view and intubation (primary outcome), modified Cormack and Lehane grade, first attempt and overall success rate, ease of intubation, number of attempts, and any complications. Results The CMAC significantly reduced the time required for glottic view [8 s (5.25‐9) vs 9 s (6.5‐12); P = 0.02] and intubation [22 s (18‐26) vs 26 s (21.5‐32); P = 0.003]. The median difference (95% CI ) for time to tracheal intubation and time to glottic view was 4 s (1‐7) and 1 (0‐4). It also improved the ease of intubation, the Cormack‐Lehane grades, and first attempt success rate. Intubation with the CMAC was possible in 100% cases, whereas only 92.5% of patients could be intubated with the Truview. The failed intubations with the Truview could be successfully intubated with the CMAC . Conclusion The CMAC Miller blade reduced the total time taken for tracheal intubation and intubation difficulty as compared to the Truview Picture Capture Device and may be a better tool for intubation in infants.