Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 27 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2023 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Endotracheal Intubation with King Vision Video Laryngoscope vs Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope in ICU: A Comparative Evaluation of Performance and Outcomes

Moturu Dharanindra, Prashant Pandurang Jedge, Vishwanath Chandrashekhar Patil, Krishna Shriram Dhanasekaran

Keywords : Airway management, Endotracheal intubation, First-pass success, Glottic view, Mallampati score, Video laryngoscopy

Citation Information : Dharanindra M, Jedge PP, Patil VC, Dhanasekaran KS. Endotracheal Intubation with King Vision Video Laryngoscope vs Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope in ICU: A Comparative Evaluation of Performance and Outcomes. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023; 27 (2):101-106.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24398

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-01-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: Endotracheal intubation to protect airway patency in critically ill patients with the use of videolaryngoscopes has been emerging and their expertise to handle is crucial. Our study focuses on the performance and outcomes of King Vision video laryngoscope (KVVL) in intensive care unit (ICU) compared to Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL). Materials and methods: This comparative study was conducted by randomizing 143 critically ill patients in ICU into two groups: KVVL and Macintosh DL (n = 73; n = 70). The intubation difficulty was assessed by Mallampati score III or IV, apnea syndrome (obstructive), cervical spine limitation, opening mouth <3 cm, coma, hypoxia, anesthesiologist nontrained (MACOCHA) score. The primary endpoint was the glottic view measured by Cormack–Lehane (CL) grading. The secondary endpoints were a first-pass success, the time required for intubation, airway morbidities, and manipulations required. Results: The KVVL group showed the primary endpoint of significantly improved glottic visualization measured in terms of CL grading compared with the Macintosh DL group (p < 0.001). In the KVVL group, the first pass success rate was higher (95.7%) compared to the Macintosh DL group (81.4%) (p < 0.05). The time required for intubation in the KVVL group (28.77 ± 2.63 seconds) was significantly less compared with Macintosh DL (38.84 ± 2.72 seconds) group (p < 0.001). The airway morbidities observed were similar in both groups (p = 0.5) and the manipulation required for endotracheal intubation was significantly less (p < 0.05) in our KVVL group (16 cases; 23%) compared to the Macintosh DL group (8 cases; 10%). Conclusion: We found that the performance and outcomes of KVVL in intubating critically ill ICU patients were promising when handled by experienced operators who are experts in anesthesiology and airway management.


PDF Share
  1. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C, Fourth National Audit Project. Major complications of airway management in the UK: Results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: Anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2011;106(5):617–631. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aer058.
  2. Myatra SN, Ahmed SM, Kundra P, Garg R, Ramkumar V, Patwa A, et al. Republication: All India Difficult Airway Association 2016 guidelines for tracheal intubation in the intensive care unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2017;21(3):146–153. DOI: 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_57_17.
  3. Higgs A, McGrath BA, Goddard C, Rangasami J, Suntharalingam G, Gale R, et al. Guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults. Br J Anaesth 2018;120(2):323–352. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.10.021.
  4. Murphy LD, Kovacs GJ, Reardon PM, Law JA. Comparison of the King Vision video laryngoscope with the Macintosh laryngoscope. J Emerg Med 2014;47(2):239–246. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.02.008.
  5. Erdivanli B, Sen A, Batcik S, Koyuncu T, Kazdal H. Comparison of King Vision video laryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope: A prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia 2018;68(5):499–506. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjan.2018.04.003.
  6. Namazi IJ, Sahni S. A comparison of two video laryngoscopes: Truview and King Vision in routine airway management. Int J Anesth Res 2014;2(5):48–52. DOI: 10.19070/2332-2780-1400013.
  7. Hanouz JL, Bonnet V, Buléon C, Simonet T, Radenac D, Zamparini G, et al. Comparison of the Mallampati classification in sitting and supine position to predict difficult tracheal intubation: A prospective observational cohort study. Anesth Analg 2018;126(1):161–169. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002108.
  8. Khan KS, Hayes I, Buggy DJ. Pharmacology of anaesthetic agents I: Intravenous anaesthetic agents. Continuing Education Anaesth Crit Care Pain 2014;14(3):100–105. DOI: 10.1093/bjaceaccp/mkt039.
  9. Magorian T, Flannery KB, Miller RD. Comparison of rocuronium, succinylcholine, and vecuronium for rapid-sequence induction of anesthesia in adult patients. Anesthesiology 1993;79(5):913–918. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199311000-00007.
  10. Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Smith AF. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;11(11):CD011136. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub2.
  11. Janz DR, Semler MW, Lentz RJ, Matthews DT, Assad TR, Norman BC. Randomized trial of video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of critically ill adults. Critical Care Med 2016;44(11):1980–1987. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001841.
  12. Driver BE, Prekker ME, Moore JC, Schick AL, Reardon RF, Miner JR. Direct versus video laryngoscopy using the C‐MAC for tracheal intubation in the emergency department, a randomized controlled trial. Academic Emerg Med 2016;23(4):433–439. DOI: 10.1111/acem.12933.
  13. Jiang J, Ma D, Li B, Yue Y, Xue F. Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care 2017;21(1):288. DOI: 10.1186/s13054-017-1885-9.
  14. Huang HB, Peng JM, Xu B, Liu GY, Du B. Video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of critically ill adults: A systemic review and meta-analysis. Chest 20171;152(3):510–517. DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2017.06.012.
  15. Arulkumaran N, Lowe J, Ions R, Mendoza M, Bennett V, Dunser MW. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for emergency orotracheal intubation outside the operating room: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth 2018;120(4):712–724. DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.12.041.
  16. De Jong A, Molinari N, Conseil M, Coisel Y, Pouzeratte Y, Belafia F, et al. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for orotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 2014;40(5):629–639. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-014-3236-5.
  17. Lakticova V, Koenig SJ, Narasimhan M, Mayo PH. Video laryngoscopy is associated with increased first pass success and decreased rate of esophageal intubations during urgent endotracheal intubation in a medical intensive care unit when compared to direct laryngoscopy. J Intensive Care Med 2015;30(1):44–48. DOI: 10.1177/0885066613492641.
  18. Griesdale DE, Chau A, Isac G, Ayas N, Foster D, Irwin C, et al. Video–laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: A pilot randomized trial. Can J Anesth 2012;59(11):1032–1039. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-012-9775-8.
  19. Sulser S, Ubmann D, Schlaepfer M, Brueesch M, Goliasch G, Seifert B, et al. C-MAC videolaryngoscope compared with direct laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation in an emergency department: A randomised clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2016;33(12):943–948. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000525.
  20. Jungbauer A, Schumann M, Brunkhorst V, Börgers A, Groeben H. Expected difficult tracheal intubation: A prospective comparison of direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth 2009;102(4):546–550. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aep013.
  21. Pradhan D, Bhattacharyya P. Difficult airway management from emergency department till intensive care unit. Indian J Critical Care Med 2015;19(9):557. DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.164810.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.