Comparison of the McGrath® Series 5 and GlideScope® Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics.
BACKGROUND
Out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation performed by paramedics using the Macintosh blade for direct laryngoscopy is associated with a high incidence of complications. The novel technique of video laryngoscopy has been shown to improve glottic view and intubation success in the operating room. The aim of this study was to compare glottic view, time of intubation and success rate of the McGrath® Series 5 and GlideScope® Ranger video laryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics.


METHODS
Thirty paramedics performed six intubations in a randomised order with all three laryngoscopes in an airway simulator with a normal airway. Subsequently, every participant performed one intubation attempt with each device in the same manikin with simulated cervical spine rigidity using a cervical collar. Glottic view, time until visualisation of the glottis and time until first ventilation were evaluated.


RESULTS
Time until first ventilation was equivalent after three intubations in the first scenario. In the scenario with decreased cervical motion, the time until first ventilation was longer using the McGrath® compared to the GlideScope® and AMacintosh (p < 0.01). The success rate for endotracheal intubation was similar for all three devices. Glottic view was only improved using the McGrath® device (p < 0.001) compared to using the Macintosh blade.


CONCLUSIONS
The learning curve for video laryngoscopy in paramedics was steep in this study. However, these data do not support prehospital use of the McGrath® and GlideScope® devices by paramedics.
Department of Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University-Mainz, Langenbeckstrasse 1, Mainz, Germany.
Tim
T
Piepho
Kathrin
K
Weinert
Florian M
FM
Heid
Christian
C
Werner
Rüdiger R
RR
Noppens
D000488:Allied Health Personnel / Q000600:supply & distribution*; D004867:Equipment Design; D006801:Humans; D007442:Intubation, Intratracheal / Q000295:instrumentation*; D020704:Laryngoscopes; D007828:Laryngoscopy / Q000379:methods*; D014741:Video Recording
Anaesthesia. 1994 Oct;49(10):843-5
7802175
Anaesthesia. 2007 Jul;62(7):708-12
17567347
Br J Anaesth. 1993 Dec;71(6):905-7
8031349
Br J Anaesth. 2008 Jan;100(1):116-9
17959584
Resuscitation. 2006 Feb;68(2):301-5
16325326
J Clin Anesth. 2007 Mar;19(2):110-4
17379122
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005 May;22(5):337-40
15918380
J Clin Anesth. 2005 Jun;17(4):255-62
15950848
Resuscitation. 2004 May;61(2):149-53
15135191
Ann Emerg Med. 1998 Oct;32(4):454-60
9774930
Acad Emerg Med. 2003 Sep;10(9):961-5
12957980
Ann Emerg Med. 2001 Jan;37(1):32-7
11145768
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009 Jul;26(7):554-8
19522050
Anesth Analg. 1992 Apr;74(4):531-4
1554118
Am J Emerg Med. 2007 Mar;25(3):263-7
17349898
Resuscitation. 1999 Jun;41(1):63-9
10459594
Can J Anaesth. 2007 Apr;54(4):307-13
17400984
J Emerg Med. 2005 Oct;29(3):253-7
16183442
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004 Jan-Mar;8(1):15-22
14691782
Anesth Analg. 2004 Aug;99(2):607-13, table of contents
15271750
Anesth Analg. 2009 Sep;109(3):825-31
19690253
Anaesthesia. 1984 Nov;39(11):1105-11
6507827
Can J Anaesth. 2007 Jan;54(1):21-7
17197464
Br J Anaesth. 2005 Mar;94(3):381-4
15567809
Resuscitation. 2010 Oct;81(10):1305-52
20956049
Can J Anaesth. 2005 Feb;52(2):191-8
15684262
Can J Anaesth. 1999 Oct;46(10):987-90
10522589