Comparison of Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope with the C-MAC and Tuoren Videolaryngoscopes in Facilitating Endotracheal Intubation during Uninterrupted Manual Chest Compression: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study
Citation Information :
Kumar R, Kumar R, Kumar N. Comparison of Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope with the C-MAC and Tuoren Videolaryngoscopes in Facilitating Endotracheal Intubation during Uninterrupted Manual Chest Compression: A Randomized Crossover Manikin Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2025; 29 (2):113-116.
Background: Videolaryngoscopes (VLS) frequently provide superior views of the glottis compared with traditional direct laryngoscopy (DL), especially during unexpected difficult airways. Chest compressions during attempts to intubate the trachea make it a difficult situation. Although VLS have been compared with DL for intubation during resuscitation, there is a paucity of literature comparing VLS with integrated screen and distant screen with DL during continued manual chest compressions.
Materials and methods: This was a prospective, randomized, crossover observational manikin study. A total of 20 participants performed intubation, while manual chest compression was continuing, with each of the three devices on six occasions, but in different, randomized order. The primary outcome parameter was the total time taken for successful intubation. The secondary outcome criteria included the number of attempts, ease of intubation, and the device preference.
Results: Time taken for successful intubation and ease of intubation were significantly better with C-MAC VLS and DL as compared with Tuoren VLS (C-MAC vs Tuoren p < 0.000 for both; DL vs Tuoren p < 0.001 for time and p = 0.021 for ease). There was no significant difference between C-MAC and DL (p = 1.0 for time and p = 0.69 for ease). There was no significant difference with regard to the number of attempts for successful intubation with any of these devices (p = 0.310). C-MAC was the most and Tuoren was the least preferred device.
Conclusion: C-MAC VLS and Macintosh DL are significantly easier to use and require significantly less time to achieve successful intubation as compared with the Tuoren VLS during continued manual chest compression. Among the devices tested, C-MAC VLS was the most preferred for endotracheal intubation during uninterrupted manual chest compressions.
Panchal AR, Bartos JA, Cabanas JG, Donnino MW, Drennan IR, Hirsch KG, et al. Part 3: Adult basic and advanced life support: 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2020;142:16(Suppl 2):S366–S468. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000916.
Koller AC, Salcido DD, Menegazzi JJ. Perishock pause intervals and rearrest after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. J Emerg Med 2016;50(2):263–269. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.08.002.
Dagli R, Canturk M, Celik F, Erbesler ZA, Gurler M. The role of videolaryngoscope in endotracheal intubation training programs. Braz J Anesthesiol 2018;68(5):447–454. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjan.2018.02.008.
Szarpak L, Madziala A, Dabrowsk M, Kaminska H, Wieczorek W, Smereka J, et al. Impact of chest compression on endotracheal intubation efficacy: A randomized crossover trial. Post N Med 2018;31(1):48–53. DOI: 10.25121/PNM.2018.31.1.48.
Cox L, Tebbett A. Videolaryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of cardiac arrest patients in hospital: A systematic literature review. Resusc Plus 2022;11:100297. DOI: 10.1016/j.resplu.2022.100297.
Gatward JJ, Thomas MJC, Nolan JP, Cook TM. Effect of chest compressions on the time taken to insert airway devices in a manikin. Br J Anaesth 2008;100(3):351–356. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aem364.
Jain D, Kumar R, Kumar S, Jafra A. Tips and tricks to improve videolaryngoscopy skills. Airway 2021;4(3):163−167. DOI: 10.4103/arwy.arwy_41_21.
Karalapillai D, Darvall J, Mandeville J, Ellard L, Graham J, Weinberg L. A review of video laryngoscopes relevant to the intensive care unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2014;18(7):442−452. DOI: 10.4103/0972-5229.136073.
Alsabri M, Abdelwahab OA, Elsnhory AB, Diab RA, Sabesan V, Ayyan M, et al. Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful emergency endotracheal intubations: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Syst Rev 2024;13(1):85. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-024-02500-9.
Khan Z, Karvandian K, Muhammed H. Direct laryngoscopy or video laryngoscopy: Which is better for performing endotracheal intubation? Arch Anesthesiol Crit Care 2021;7(4):278−284. DOI: 10.18502/aacc.v7i4.7634.
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.
Park SO, Kim JW, Na JH, Lee KH, Lee KR, Hong DY, et al. Video laryngoscopy improves the first-attempt success in endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation among novice physicians. Resuscitation 2015;89:188−194. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.12.010.
Sanfilippo F, Messina S, Merola F, Tigano S, Morgana A, Dimagli A, et al. Endotracheal intubation during chest compressions in the pediatric simulation setting: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Signa Vitae 2022;18(6):94−102. DOI: 10.22514/sv.2022.034.
Kim JW, Park SO, Lee KR, Hong DY, Baek KJ, Lee YH, et al. Video laryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy: Which should be chosen for endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation? A prospective randomized controlled study of experienced intubators. Resuscitation 2016;105:196−202. DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.04.003.
Min BC, Park JE, Lee GT, Kim TR, Yoon H, Cha WC, et al. C-MAC videolaryngoscope versus conventional direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Medicina (Kaunas) 2019;55(6):225. DOI: 10.3390/medicina55060225.
