ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 131-136

Comparison of Mc Grath-MAC and C-MAC video laryngoscopes for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novice users wearing face protective gear: A randomized crossover trial


1 Department of Onco Anaesthesia and Palliative Medicine, National Cancer Institute, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jhajjar, Haryama, India
2 Department of Onco Anaesthesia and Palliative Medicine, Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India
3 Department of Preventive Oncology, National Cancer Institute, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Jhajjar, Haryama, India

Correspondence Address:
Nishkarsh Gupta
Addition Professor, Department of Onco Anaesthesia and Palliative Medicine, Institute Rotary Cancer Hospital, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/sja.sja_1058_20

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Intubation in COVID patients is challenging. Various guidelines suggest the use of video-laryngoscope (VL) as the first device to aid intubation in a COVID patient. The best VL to facilitate intubation in such a setting especially by novices is not ascertained. We compared intubation characteristics by two VL's (McGrath-MAC and C-MAC) for intubation in a COVID simulated mannequin by novices. Methodology: This prospective randomized manikin-based crossover study was done in thirty medical professionals with no previous experience of intubation with VL. All participants were trained on Laerdel airway management trainer and were allowed 5 practice sessions with each scope with an intubation box while wearing face protective personal protective equipment (PPE). Participants were randomized into two groups of 15 each, one group performed the intubation first with McGrath and the other with C-MAC before crossing over. Results: The mean (S. D.) time to intubation was similar with both McGrath-VL and CMAC VL [31.33 (14.72) s vs 26.47 (8.5) s, P = (p-0.063)]. POGO score [mean (S. D.)] was better with CMAC [81.33 (16.24) vs 60.33 (14.73), p-0.00. The majority of the users preferred C-MAC VL for intubation (93.33%). The incidence of failed intubation and multiple attempts at intubating were similar with the two scopes. Conclusion: The time to intubation was similar with both VL's but the majority of novices preferred CMAC probably due to a bigger screen that helped them to have a better view of glottis in the COVID simulated mannequin.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed344    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded51    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal