Comparison of the McGrath video laryngoscope and macintosh direct laryngoscope in obstetric patients: A randomized controlled trial

Simple steps towards improving safety in obstetric airway management: A quality improvement project

BACKGROUND

Guidelines from the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association and Difficult Airway Society state that 'a videolaryngoscope should be immediately available for all obstetric general anaesthetics'.

OBJECTIVE

To report the incidence of videolaryngoscopy use, and other airway management safety interventions, in an obstetric population before and after various quality improvement interventions.

DESIGN

Prospective data collection was undertaken over 18 months, divided into three separate 6-month periods: June to November 2019; March to August 2021; January to June 2022. These periods relate to evaluation of specific quality improvement interventions.

SETTING

The project was carried out in a large tertiary referral obstetric unit.

PATIENTS

We identified 401 pregnant women (> 20 weeks' gestation) and postnatal women (up to 48 h post delivery) undergoing an obstetric surgical procedure under general anaesthesia.

INTERVENTIONS

To standardise practice, an intubation checklist was introduced in December 2020 and multidisciplinary staff training in August 2021.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measures were use of a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope and tracheal intubation success. Secondary outcome measures were use of an intubation checklist; low flow nasal oxygen; and ramped patient positioning.

RESULTS

Data from 334 tracheal intubations (83.3% of cases) were recorded. Videolaryngoscope use increased from 60% in 2019, to 88% in 2021, to 94% in 2022. Tracheal intubation was successful in all patients, with 94% first pass success overall and only 0.9% requiring three attempts. Use of secondary outcome measures also increased: low flow nasal oxygen from 48% in 2019 to 90% in 2022; ramped positioning from 95% in 2021 to 97% in 2022; and checklist use from 63% in 2021 to 92% in 2022.

CONCLUSIONS

We describe the successful adoption of simple safety measures introduced into routine practice. These comprised videolaryngoscopy, ramped positioning and low flow nasal oxygen. Their introduction was supported by the implementation of an intubation checklist and multidisciplinary team training.

Comparison of McGrath Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh Laryngoscope in Tracheal Intubation: An Updated Systematic Review

(1) Background: In the last few years, many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared direct Macintosh laryngoscopy with McGrath videolaryngoscopy in order to assess the potential benefits of the latter; the results were sometimes controversial. (2) Methods: We conducted a comprehensive literature search to identify our articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria: to be included, each study had to be a prospective randomized trial or comparison between the McGrath videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope in an adult population. We did not include manikin trials or studies involving double-lumen tubes. (3) Results: 10 studies met the inclusion criteria necessary. In total, 655 patients were intubated with the McGrath and 629 with the Macintosh. In total, 1268 of 1284 patients were successfully intubated, showing equivalent results for the two devices: 648 of 655 patients with the McGrath videolaryngoscope and 620 of 629 patients with the Macintosh laryngoscope. No differences were noted in terms of hemodynamic changes or the incidence of adverse events. (4) Conclusions: We can assert that the McGrath videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscope, even if with equivalent tracheal intubation results, supplement each other.

COVID-19 critical illness in pregnancy

Although the pregnant population was affected by early waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, increasing transmission and severity due to new viral variants has resulted in an increased incidence of severe illness during pregnancy in many regions. Critical illness and respiratory failure are relatively uncommon occurrences during pregnancy, and there are limited high-quality data to direct management. This paper reviews the current literature on COVID-19 management as it relates to pregnancy, and provides an overview of critical care support in these patients. COVID-19 drug therapy is similar to that used in the non-pregnant patient, including anti-inflammatory therapy with steroids and IL-6 inhibitors, although safety data are limited for antiviral drugs such as remdesivir and monoclonal antibodies. As both pregnancy and COVID-19 are thrombogenic, thromboprophylaxis is essential. Endotracheal intubation is a higher risk during pregnancy, but mechanical ventilation should follow usual principles. ICU management should be directed at optimizing maternal well-being, which in turn will benefit the fetus.

Critical Care Management of Severe COVID-19 in Pregnant Patients

Since December 2019, the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has had a disastrous impact worldwide. COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus and was declared a pandemic by the WHO on March 11, 2020. The virus has been linked to a wide range of respiratory illnesses, ranging from mild symptoms to acute pneumonia and severe respiratory distress syndrome. Pregnant women are more vulnerable to COVID-19 complications owing to the physiological and immunological changes caused by pregnancy. According to the CDC, pregnant patients with COVID-19 are commonly hospitalized and often require admission to ICUs and ventilator support. Therefore, it is especially important for pregnant women to adhere to disease prevention measures to lower the risk of contracting the disease. In addition, the guidelines of several clinical societies and local health authorities should be followed when caring for pregnant women with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. In this review article, we discuss the epidemiology of COVID-19 during delivery, its effect on the physiological and immunological changes during pregnancy, the classification of COVID-19 severity, maternal and fetal risks, antenatal care, respiratory management, treatment/medication safety, timing and mode of delivery, anesthetic considerations, and the outcome of critically ill pregnant patients with COVID-19, as well as their post-delivery care and weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation is a common procedure performed to secure the airway in adults undergoing surgery or those who are critically ill. Intubation is sometimes associated with difficulties and complications that may result in patient harm. While it is traditionally achieved by performing direct laryngoscopy, the past three decades have seen the advent of rigid indirect videolaryngoscopes (VLs). A mounting body of evidence comparing the two approaches to tracheal intubation has been acquired over this period of time. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether use of different designs of VLs in adults requiring tracheal intubation reduces the failure rate compared with direct laryngoscopy, and assess the benefits and risks of these devices in selected population groups, users and settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 27 February 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with adults undergoing laryngoscopy performed with either a VL or a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL) in any clinical setting. We included parallel and cross-over study designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for the following outcomes: failed intubation, hypoxaemia, successful first attempt at tracheal intubation, oesophageal intubation, dental trauma, Cormack-Lehane grade, and time for tracheal intubation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 222 studies (219 RCTs, three quasi-RCTs) with 26,149 participants undergoing tracheal intubation. Most studies recruited adults undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation. Twenty-one studies recruited participants with a known or predicted difficult airway, and an additional 25 studies simulated a difficult airway. Twenty-one studies were conducted outside the operating theatre environment; of these, six were in the prehospital setting, seven in the emergency department and eight in the intensive care unit.  We report here the findings of the three main comparisons according to videolaryngoscopy device type. We downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision, study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), inconsistency when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity and publication bias. Macintosh-style videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (61 studies, 9883 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that a Macintosh-style VL probably reduces rates of failed intubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.65; 41 studies, 4615 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99; 16 studies, 2127 participants). These devices may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 42 studies, 7311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view when assessed as Cormack-Lehane grade 3 and 4 (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.48; 38 studies, 4368 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.21; 14 studies, 2404 participants) but this finding was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.89; 18 studies, 2297 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 96%). Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (96 studies, 11,438 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 63 studies, 7146 participants) and oesophageal intubation (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.81; 14 studies, 1968 participants). In subgroup analysis, we noted that hyperangulated VLs were more likely to reduce failed intubation when used on known or predicted difficult airways (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48; P = 0.03 for subgroup differences; 15 studies, 1520 participants). We also found that these devices may increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05; 66 studies, 8086 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the glottic view is probably also improved (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.24; 54 studies, 6058 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we found low-certainty evidence of little or no clear difference in rates of hypoxaemia (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.11; 15 studies, 1691 participants), and the findings for dental trauma were unclear because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.59; 30 studies, 3497 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). Channelled videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (73 studies, 7165 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that channelled VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.61; 53 studies, 5367 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.50; 15 studies, 1966 participants). They may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 47 studies, 5210 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.21; 40 studies, 3955 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.75; 16 studies, 1756 participants) but this was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.12; 29 studies, 2375 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 98%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

VLs of all designs likely reduce rates of failed intubation and result in higher rates of successful intubation on the first attempt with improved glottic views. Macintosh-style and channelled VLs likely reduce rates of hypoxaemic events, while hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of oesophageal intubation. We conclude that videolaryngoscopy likely provides a safer risk profile compared to direct laryngoscopy for all adults undergoing tracheal intubation.

Comparisons of Videolaryngoscopes for Intubation Undergoing General Anesthesia: Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: The efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopes (VLs) for tracheal intubation is still conflicting and changeable according to airway circumstances. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of several VLs in patients undergoing general anesthesia. Methods: Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched until 13 January 2020. The following VLs were evaluated compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope (MCL) by network meta-analysis for randomized controlled trials (RCTs): Airtraq, Airwayscope, C-MAC, C-MAC D-blade (CMD), GlideScope, King Vision, and McGrath. Outcome measures were the success and time (speed) of intubation, glottic view, and sore throat (safety). Results: A total of 9315 patients in 96 RCTs were included. The highest-ranked VLs for first-pass intubation success were CMD (90.6 % in all airway; 92.7% in difficult airway) and King Vision (92% in normal airway). In the rank analysis for secondary outcomes, the following VLs showed the highest efficacy or safety: Airtraq (safety), Airwayscope (speed and view), C-MAC (speed), CMD (safety), and McGrath (view). These VLs, except McGrath, were more effective or safer than MCL in moderate evidence level, whereas there was low certainty of evidence in the intercomparisons of VLs. Conclusions: CMD and King Vision could be relatively successful than MCL and other VLs for tracheal intubation under general anesthesia. The comparisons of intubation success between VLs and MCL showed moderate certainty of evidence level, whereas the intercomparisons of VLs showed low certainty evidence.