IntroductionThe direct laryngoscopy technique using a Macintosh blade is the first choice globally for most anaesthetists. In case of an unanticipated difficult airway, the complication rate increases with the number of intubation attempts. Recently, McGrath MAC (McGrath) video laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for securing an airway by tracheal intubation because it allows the visualisation of the glottis without a direct line of sight. Several studies and case reports have highlighted the benefit of the video laryngoscope in the visualisation of the glottis and found it to be superior in difficult intubation situations. The aim of this study was to compare the first-pass intubation success rate using the (McGrath) video laryngoscope compared with conventional direct laryngoscopy in surgical patients.Methods and analysisThe EMMA trial is a multicentre, open-label, patient-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Consecutive patients requiring tracheal intubation are randomly allocated to either the McGrath video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscopy using the Macintosh laryngoscope. The expected rate of successful first-pass intubation is 95% in the McGrath group and 90% in the Macintosh group. Each group must include a total of 1000 patients to achieve 96% power for detecting a difference at the 5% significance level. Successful intubation with the first attempt is the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints are the time to intubation, attempts for successful intubation, the necessity of alternatives, visualisation of the glottis using the Cormack & Lehane score and percentage of glottic opening score and definite complications.Ethics and disseminationThe project was approved by the local ethics committee of the Medical Association of the Rhineland Palatine state and Westphalia-Lippe. The results of this study will be made available in the form of manuscripts for publication and presentations at national and international meetings.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT 02611986; pre-results.

PurposeIt is generally accepted that using a video laryngoscope is associated with an improved visualization of the glottis. However, correctly placing the endotracheal tube might be challenging. Channeled video laryngoscopic blades have an endotracheal tube already pre-loaded, allowing to advance the tube once the glottis is visualized. We hypothesized that use of a channel blade with pre-loaded endotracheal tube results in a faster intubation, compared to a curved Macintosh blade video laryngoscope.MethodsAfter ethical approval and informed consent, patients were randomized to receive endotracheal Intubation with either the King Vision® video laryngoscope with curved blade (control) or channeled blade (channeled). Success rate, evaluation of the glottis view (percentage of glottic opening (POGO), Cormack&Lehane (C&L)) and intubating time were evaluated.ResultsOver a two-month period, a total of 46 patients (control n = 23; channeled n = 23) were examined. The first attempt success rates were comparable between groups (control 100% (23/23) vs. channeled 96% (22/23); p = 0.31). Overall intubation time was significantly shorter with control (median 40 sec; IQR [24–58]), compared to channeled (59 sec [40–74]; p = 0.03). There were no differences in glottis visualization between groups.ConclusionCompared with the King Vision channeled blade, time for tracheal intubation was shorter with the control group using a non-channeled blade. First attempt success and visualization of the glottis were comparable. These data do not support the hypothesis that a channeled blade is superior to a curved video laryngoscopic blade without tube guidance.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02344030

No abstract

BackgroundOrogastric tube placement is a common procedure routinely used in clinical anesthesiology and intensive care medicine. Nevertheless high failure rates and severe complications have been reported. We conducted this study to evaluate if the usage of the new gastric tube guide would speed up the placement of orogastric tubes and ease the procedure.MethodsThirty one professionals were given a hands-on-training in orogastric tube placement in a simulation manikin without and with the gastric tube guide. Afterwards they performed both methods in randomized order. We recorded the placement time, counted the required attempts and asked the participants to rate their experience with both methods.ResultsThe median placement time using the gastric tube guide was 14 s compared to 25 s without the device. In addition all participants were able to place the orogastric tube when using the gastric tube guide compared to 26/31 (84%) without it. Furthermore 26/31 (84%) users preferred the gastric tube guide over the standard method.ConclusionOur results show that using the gastric tube guide to place orogastric tubes in a manikin led to a significant shorter placement time and a higher overall success rate.

No abstract