No abstract

Background Endotracheal intubation continues to be the gold standard for securing the airway in emergency situations. Difficult intubation is still a dreadful situation when securing the airway. Objective To compare VieScope with Glidescope and conventional Macintosh laryngoscopy (MAC) in a simulated difficult airway situation. Methods In this randomized controlled simulation trial, 35 anesthesiologists performed endotracheal intubation using VieScope, GlideScope and MAC in a randomized order on a certified airway manikin with difficult airway. Results For the primary endpoint of correct tube position, no statistical difference was found (p = 0.137). Time until intubation for GlideScope (27.5 ± 20.3 s) and MAC (20.8 ± 8.1 s) were shorter compared to the VieScope (36.3 ± 10.1 s). Time to first ventilation, GlideScope (39.3 ± 21.6 s) and MAC (31.9 ± 9.5 s) were also shorter compared to the VieScope (46.5 ± 12.4 s). There was no difference shown between handling time for VieScope (20.7 ± 7.0 s) and time until intubation with GlideScope or MAC. Participants stated a better Cormack & Lehane Score with VieScope, compared to direct laryngoscopy. Conclusion Rate of correct tracheal tube position was comparable between the three devices. Time to intubation and ventilation were shorter with MAC and Glidescope compared to VieScope. It did however show a comparable handling time to video laryngoscopy and MAC. It also did show a better visualization of the airway in the Cormack & Lehane Score compared to MAC. Trial registration The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Identifier: DRKS00024968) on March 31st 2021.

In this model of massive gastric aspiration, we compared two different laryngoscopes (VieScope and Macintosh) in a randomized, controlled simulation study. The primary endpoint was time to intubation; the secondary endpoints were intubation success (i.e., tracheal tube position) and amount of pulmonary aspiration. Thirty-four anesthetists performed endotracheal intubation using VieScope and Macintosh laryngoscopy in a randomized order on an airway manikin simulating massive regurgitation of gastric fluid. The primary endpoint “time until intubation” could be achieved significantly faster (mean −12.4 s [95% confidence intervals (CI) −19.7 s; −7.3 s]) with Macintosh compared to VieScope (p < 0.001). Concerning “correct tube position”, no statistical difference was found between the devices (p = 1.0). The mean time to first ventilation was −11.1 s [95% CI −18.3 s; −5.3 s] when using Macintosh (p = 0.001). The mean volume of aspirated gastric fluid was lower in the Macintosh group: −90.0 mL [95% CI −235.0 mL; −27.5 mL] (p = 0.011). Data from this simulation study suggest that in a model of massive gastric regurgitation, airway management can be achieved faster and with less gastric aspiration when using a Macintosh laryngoscope compared to a VieScope laryngoscope.