Comparative efficacy of the CMAC and KingVision videolaryngoscope to conventional direct laryngoscopy in patients with predicted difficult airways
A comparison of intubation difficulty scale (IDS) scores between conventional direct laryngoscopy with the Macintosh blade, to that achieved by the CMAC and KingVision videolaryngoscope in 75 patients at increased risk for difficult tracheal intubation: a randomised, single blind, controlled clinical trial
Dr Wendy H.L. Teoh
75 participants
Jun 16, 2014
Interventional
Conditions
Summary
This trial compares intubation characteristics of using conventional direct Macintosh laryngoscopy vs. the CMac and KingVision videolaryngoscope to intubate the tracheas of 75 patients with difficult airways.
Eligibility
Inclusion Criteria1
- Patients with at least two of the following characteristics indicative of an increased risk for difficult tracheal intubation: (i) Mallampati classification 3 or 4 (ii) thyromental distance less than and equal to 6cm, (iii) inter-incisor distance less than and equal to 4cm, who are scheduled for gynaecological, breast or plastic reconstructive surgery.All patients with a previously documented difficult tracheal intubation were also eligible for inclusion.
Exclusion Criteria1
- We excluded patients who were ASA physical status IV, at high risk of regurgitation or aspiration.
Interested in this trial?
Get notified about updates and connect with the research team.
Interventions
After induction of a standard general anaesthetic, and 3 min after administration of a neuromuscular blocking agent, patients underwent indirect laryngoscopy and intubation with the CMAC (Macintosh-shaped reusable videolaryngoscope with separate video screen) or KingVision (channelled disposable videolaryngoscope with built-in video screen atop its handle).
Locations(1)
View Full Details on ANZCTR
For the most up-to-date information, visit the official listing.
ACTRN12614000627651