Using King Vision video laryngoscope with a channeled blade prolongs time for tracheal intubation in different training levels, compared to non-channeled blade.

Abstract

PurposeIt is generally accepted that using a video laryngoscope is associated with an improved visualization of the glottis. However, correctly placing the endotracheal tube might be challenging. Channeled video laryngoscopic blades have an endotracheal tube already pre-loaded, allowing to advance the tube once the glottis is visualized. We hypothesized that use of a channel blade with pre-loaded endotracheal tube results in a faster intubation, compared to a curved Macintosh blade video laryngoscope.MethodsAfter ethical approval and informed consent, patients were randomized to receive endotracheal Intubation with either the King Vision® video laryngoscope with curved blade (control) or channeled blade (channeled). Success rate, evaluation of the glottis view (percentage of glottic opening (POGO), Cormack&Lehane (C&L)) and intubating time were evaluated.ResultsOver a two-month period, a total of 46 patients (control n = 23; channeled n = 23) were examined. The first attempt success rates were comparable between groups (control 100% (23/23) vs. channeled 96% (22/23); p = 0.31). Overall intubation time was significantly shorter with control (median 40 sec; IQR [24–58]), compared to channeled (59 sec [40–74]; p = 0.03). There were no differences in glottis visualization between groups.ConclusionCompared with the King Vision channeled blade, time for tracheal intubation was shorter with the control group using a non-channeled blade. First attempt success and visualization of the glottis were comparable. These data do not support the hypothesis that a channeled blade is superior to a curved video laryngoscopic blade without tube guidance.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02344030