Comparing Air Medical Personnel Intubation Success Rates Using Direct, Channeled Video-Assisted, and Unchanneled Video-Assisted Laryngoscopy

Abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the first-pass intubation success rates of air medical providers using direct laryngoscopy, channeled blade video laryngoscopy, and nonchanneled blade video laryngoscopy. MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study of the Orlando Health Air Care Team (ACT) airway quality registry over a 5-year period. The ACT had 3 approved approaches for endotracheal intubation: direct laryngoscopy, the King Vision (Ambu, Ballerup Denmark) channeled blade laryngoscope, or the C-MAC (Karl-Storz, Tuttlingen Germany) (nonchanneled) laryngoscope. The main outcome was the first-pass success rate. The secondary outcomes included the number of attempts, the overall success rate, and complications. ResultsOf 517 intubations, 312 were performed with direct laryngoscopy, 126 with a channeled video laryngoscope, and 79 with a nonchanneled laryngoscope. The mean number of attempts was 1.26, and the overall success rate was 93%. Use of the nonchanneled video laryngoscope had a higher first-pass success rate than direct or channeled laryngoscopy (92% vs. 76% and 78%, P = .006), required fewer attempts (1.09 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.01-1.17] vs. 1.29 [95% CI, 1.23-1.35] and 1.28 [95% CI, 1.18-1.38], P < .001), and a higher overall success rate for intubation (99% vs. 90% and 95%, P = .018). ConclusionThe use of a nonchanneled video laryngoscope provided higher first-pass success rates, fewer total attempts, and higher overall success rates.