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

Status

Not yet recruiting

Phases

Phase 4

Study type

Interventional

Source

ANZCTR

Registry ID

ACTRN12614000627651

Enrollment

Registered

2014-06-13

Start date

2014-06-16

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2020-01-13

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

None listed

Brief 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.

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).

Study design

Allocation

Randomised controlled trial

Intervention model

Parallel

Primary purpose

Treatment

Masking

Blinded (masking used) (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender

All

Age

22 Years to 90 Years

Healthy volunteers

Inclusion criteria

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 criteria

We excluded patients who were ASA physical status IV, at high risk of regurgitation or aspiration.

Outcome results