Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol

Marc Kriege, Christian Alflen, Irene Tzanova, Irene Schmidtmann, Tim Piepho, Ruediger R Noppens, Marc Kriege, Christian Alflen, Irene Tzanova, Irene Schmidtmann, Tim Piepho, Ruediger R Noppens

Abstract

Introduction: The direct laryngoscopy technique using a Macintosh blade is the first choice globally for most anaesthetists. In case of an unanticipated difficult airway, the complication rate increases with the number of intubation attempts. Recently, McGrath MAC (McGrath) video laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for securing an airway by tracheal intubation because it allows the visualisation of the glottis without a direct line of sight. Several studies and case reports have highlighted the benefit of the video laryngoscope in the visualisation of the glottis and found it to be superior in difficult intubation situations. The aim of this study was to compare the first-pass intubation success rate using the (McGrath) video laryngoscope compared with conventional direct laryngoscopy in surgical patients.

Methods and analysis: The EMMA trial is a multicentre, open-label, patient-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Consecutive patients requiring tracheal intubation are randomly allocated to either the McGrath video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscopy using the Macintosh laryngoscope. The expected rate of successful first-pass intubation is 95% in the McGrath group and 90% in the Macintosh group. Each group must include a total of 1000 patients to achieve 96% power for detecting a difference at the 5% significance level. Successful intubation with the first attempt is the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints are the time to intubation, attempts for successful intubation, the necessity of alternatives, visualisation of the glottis using the Cormack & Lehane score and percentage of glottic opening score and definite complications.

Ethics and dissemination: The project was approved by the local ethics committee of the Medical Association of the Rhineland Palatine state and Westphalia-Lippe. The results of this study will be made available in the form of manuscripts for publication and presentations at national and international meetings.

Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 02611986; pre-results.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02611986.

Keywords: adult anaesthesia; airway management; difficult airwayd; intubation; macintosh laryngoscope; video laryngoscope.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart. ASA, American Society of Anesthesiologists; BMI, body mass index; BURP, backward, upward and rightward pressure; C&L, Cormack & Lehane; DL, direct laryngoscopy; ETT, endotracheal tube; POGO, percentage of glottic opening; SGA, supraglottic airway.

References

    1. Mulcaster JT, Mills J, Hung OR, et al. . Laryngoscopic intubation: learning and performance. Anesthesiology 2003;98:23–7.
    1. Konrad C, Schüpfer G, Wietlisbach M, et al. . Learning manual skills in anesthesiology: is there a recommended number of cases for anesthetic procedures? Anesth Analg 1998;86:635–9.
    1. Silverberg MJ, Li N, Acquah SO, et al. . Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2015;43:636–41. 10.1097/CCM.0000000000000751
    1. Park SO, Kim JW, Na JH, et al. . Video laryngoscopy improves the first-attempt success in endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation among novice physicians. Resuscitation 2015;89:188–94. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.12.010
    1. Ahmadi K, Ebrahimi M, Hashemian AM, et al. . GlideScope Video Laryngoscope for Difficult Intubation in Emergency Patients: a Quasi-Randomized Controlled Trial. Acta Med Iran 2015;53:738–42.
    1. Sakles JC, Mosier JM, Chiu S, et al. . Tracheal intubation in the emergency department: a comparison of GlideScope® video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy in 822 intubations. J Emerg Med 2012;42:400–5. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.05.019
    1. Yeatts DJ, Dutton RP, Hu PF, et al. . Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: a randomized controlled trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013;75:212–9. 10.1097/TA.0b013e318293103d
    1. Mosier JM, Whitmore SP, Bloom JW, et al. . Video laryngoscopy improves intubation success and reduces esophageal intubations compared to direct laryngoscopy in the medical intensive care unit. Crit Care 2013;17:R237 10.1186/cc13061
    1. Noppens RR, Geimer S, Eisel N, et al. . Endotracheal intubation using the C-MAC® video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope: a prospective, comparative study in the ICU. Crit Care 2012;16:R103 10.1186/cc11384
    1. Kory P, Guevarra K, Mathew JP, et al. . The impact of video laryngoscopy use during urgent endotracheal intubation in the critically ill. Anesth Analg 2013;117:144–9. 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3182917f2a
    1. Piepho T, Fortmueller K, Heid FM, et al. . Performance of the C-MAC video laryngoscope in patients after a limited glottic view using Macintosh laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2011;66:1101–5. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06872.x
    1. Michailidou M, O’Keeffe T, Mosier JM, et al. . A comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for the emergency intubation of trauma patients. World J Surg 2015;39:782–8. 10.1007/s00268-014-2845-z
    1. Vassiliadis J, Tzannes A, Hitos K, et al. . Comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope with direct Macintosh laryngoscopy in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas 2015;27:119–25. 10.1111/1742-6723.12358
    1. Platts-Mills TF, Campagne D, Chinnock B, et al. . A comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2009;16:866–71. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00492.x
    1. Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg 2004;99:607–13. 10.1213/01.ANE.0000122825.04923.15
    1. Hasegawa K, Shigemitsu K, Hagiwara Y, et al. . Association between repeated intubation attempts and adverse events in emergency departments: an analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Ann Emerg Med 2012;60:749–54. 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2012.04.005
    1. Sakles JC, Javedani PP, Chase E, et al. . The use of a video laryngoscope by emergency medicine residents is associated with a reduction in esophageal intubations in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 2015;22:700–7. 10.1111/acem.12674
    1. Noppens RR, Möbus S, Heid F, et al. . Evaluation of the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope after failed direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2010;65:716–20. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2010.06388.x
    1. Kaplan A, Göksu E, Yıldız G, et al. . Comparison of the C-MAC Videolaryngoscope and rigid fiberscope with direct laryngoscopy in Easy and Difficult Airway scenarios: a Manikin Study. J Emerg Med 2016;50:e107–e114. 10.1016/j.jemermed.2015.06.070
    1. Ruetzler K, Imach S, Weiss M, et al. . [Comparison of five video laryngoscopes and conventional direct laryngoscopy : investigations on simple and simulated difficult airways on the intubation trainer]. Anaesthesist 2015;64:513–9. 10.1007/s00101-015-0051-5
    1. Savoldelli GL, Schiffer E, Abegg C, et al. . Comparison of the Glidescope, the McGrath, the Airtraq and the Macintosh laryngoscopes in simulated difficult airways*. Anaesthesia 2008;63:1358–64. 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2008.05653.x
    1. Aziz MF, Abrons RO, Cattano D, et al. . First-Attempt Intubation success of Video Laryngoscopy in patients with Anticipated Difficult Direct Laryngoscopy: a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial comparing the C-MAC D-Blade Versus the GlideScope in a Mixed Provider and Diverse Patient Population. Anesth Analg 2016;122:740–50. 10.1213/ANE.0000000000001084
    1. Piepho T, Weinert K, Heid FM, et al. . Comparison of the McGrath® Series 5 and GlideScope® Ranger with the Macintosh laryngoscope by paramedics. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2011;19:4 10.1186/1757-7241-19-4
    1. Savoldelli GL, Schiffer E, Abegg C, et al. . Learning curves of the Glidescope, the McGrath and the Airtraq laryngoscopes: a manikin study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2009;26:554–8. 10.1097/EJA.0b013e3283269ff4
    1. Wallace CD, Foulds LT, McLeod GA, et al. . A comparison of the ease of tracheal intubation using a McGrath MAC(®) laryngoscope and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia 2015;70:1281–5. 10.1111/anae.13209
    1. Bailly A, Lascarrou JB, Le Thuaut A, et al. . McGRATH MAC videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for orotracheal intubation in intensive care patients: the randomised multicentre MACMAN trial study protocol. BMJ Open 2015;5:e009855 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009855
    1. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC, et al. . SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013;346:e7586 10.1136/bmj.e7586
    1. McCrory JW, Matthews JN. Comparison of four methods of preoxygenation. Br J Anaesth 1990;64:571–6. 10.1093/bja/64.5.571
    1. Tanoubi I, Drolet P, Donati F. Optimizing preoxygenation in adults. Can J Anaesth 2009;56:449–66. 10.1007/s12630-009-9084-z
    1. Murphy C, Wong DT. Airway management and oxygenation in obese patients. Can J Anaesth 2013;60:929–45. 10.1007/s12630-013-9991-x
    1. Piepho T, Cavus E, Noppens R, et al. . S1 guidelines on airway management : Guideline of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Anaesthesist 2015;64:27–40. 10.1007/s00101-015-0109-4
    1. Adnet F, Borron SW, Racine SX, et al. . The intubation difficulty scale (IDS): proposal and evaluation of a new score characterizing the complexity of endotracheal intubation. Anesthesiology 1997;87:1290–7.
    1. Weiss M, Schwarz U, Gerber AC. Difficult airway management: comparison of the Bullard laryngoscope with the video-optical intubation stylet. Can J Anaesth 2000;47:280–4. 10.1007/BF03018927
    1. Makwana HD, Suthar NN, Gajjar MP, et al. . Developing competency in interns for endotracheal intubation: an educational article. Int J Appl Basic Med Res 2016;6:201–4. 10.4103/2229-516X.186964
    1. Janssens M, Lamy M. Airway Difficulty Score (ADS): a new score to predict difficulty in airway management. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2000;17:35 10.1097/00003643-200000002-00114
    1. Purugganan RV, Jackson TA, Heir JS, et al. . Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for double-lumen endotracheal tube intubation: a retrospective analysis. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2012;26:845–8. 10.1053/j.jvca.2012.01.014
    1. Kasuya Y, Takahashi E, Nagai M, et al. . [Comparison of Tracheal Intubation Performance between Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope and McGRATH® MAC Video Laryngoscope among Anesthesia Trainees]. Masui 2015;64:1291–6.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir