Abdelgalel, E., Mowafy, S. (2018). Comparison between Glidescope, Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in intensive care unit: Randomized controlled trial. test, 34(4), 123-128. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2018.06.002
Essam F. Abdelgalel; Sherif M.S. Mowafy. "Comparison between Glidescope, Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in intensive care unit: Randomized controlled trial". test, 34, 4, 2018, 123-128. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2018.06.002
Abdelgalel, E., Mowafy, S. (2018). 'Comparison between Glidescope, Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in intensive care unit: Randomized controlled trial', test, 34(4), pp. 123-128. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2018.06.002
Abdelgalel, E., Mowafy, S. Comparison between Glidescope, Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in intensive care unit: Randomized controlled trial. test, 2018; 34(4): 123-128. doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2018.06.002

Comparison between Glidescope, Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in intensive care unit: Randomized controlled trial

Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia
Volume 34, Issue 4, October 2018, Pages 123-128    PDF (806.98 K)
DOI: 10.1016/j.egja.2018.06.002
Authors
Essam F. Abdelgalel; Sherif M.S. Mowafy
Abstract
Background
Emergency endotracheal intubation in intensive care is a major challenge that can be associated with life-threatening complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the success of the first attempt of endotracheal intubation and incidence of complications using Macintosh laryngoscopy, Airtraq or Glidescope during emergency intubation in intensive care.
Patients and methods
One hundred twenty adult intensive care patients of ASA physical status III and IV who required emergency endotracheal intubation were randomly allocated into 3 groups. Group M (40 patients) were intubated using Macintosh laryngoscopy. Group G (40 patients) were intubated using Glidescope. Group A (40 patients) were intubated using Airtraq. The primary outcome was the success of the first attempt of endotracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included the number of intubation attempts, duration of intubation, glottic view as assessed by Cormack-Lehane grade (C&L grade) and incidence of complications.
Results
Success of the first attempt of endotracheal intubation was significantly higher in both groups G and A compared to group M (p < 0.05). The number of intubation attempts was significantly higher in group M compared to both groups G and A (p < 0.05). The duration of endotracheal intubation was 28.80 ± 10.27 s in group M compared to 31.45 ± 12.17 s in group G and 32.25 ± 11.96 s in group A (p > 0.05). The C&L grade was significantly better in both groups G and A compared to group M (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference between the three groups in HR or MAP. The incidence of oxygen desaturation was significantly more in group M compared to groups G and A. No statistically significant difference between the 3 studied groups regarding the incidence of other complications.
Conclusion
Both Glidescope and Airtraq have higher first attempt success rate with a better glottic view and less incidence of oxygen desaturation than Macintosh laryngoscopy during emergency intubation in intensive care.
Statistics
Article View: 14
PDF Download: 19