Improved glottic exposure with the video MacIntosh laryngoscope in adult emergency department tracheal intubations

Calvin A. Brown, Aaron E Bair, Daniel J. Pallin, Erik G Laurin, Ron M. Walls

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

50 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Study objective: Glottic visualization with video is superior to direct laryngoscopy in controlled operating room studies. However, glottic exposure with video laryngoscopy has not been evaluated in the emergency department (ED) setting, where blood, secretions, poor patient positioning, and physiologic derangement can complicate laryngoscopy. We measure the difference in glottic visualization with video versus direct laryngoscopy. Methods: We prospectively studied a convenience sample of tracheal intubations at 2 academic EDs. We performed laryngoscopy with the Karl Storz Video Macintosh Laryngoscope, which can be used for conventional direct laryngoscopy, as well as video laryngoscopy. We rated glottic visualization with the Cormack-Lehane (C-L) Scale, defining "good" visualization as C-L I or II and "poor" visualization as C-L III or IV. We compared glottic exposure between direct and video laryngoscopy, determining the proportion of poor direct visualizations improved to good visualization with video laryngoscopy. We also determined the proportion of good direct visualizations worsened to poor visualization by video laryngoscopy. Results: We report data on 198 patients, including 146 (74%) medical, 51 (26%) trauma, and 1 (0.51%) unknown indications. All were tracheally intubated by emergency physicians. Postgraduate year 3 or 4 residents performed 102 (52.3%) of the laryngoscopies, postgraduate year 2 residents performed 60 (30.8%), interns performed 20 (10.3%), attending physicians performed 9 (4.6%), and operator experience and specialty were not reported in 4. Overall, good visualization (C-L grade I or II) was attained in 158 direct (80%) versus 185 video laryngoscopies (93%; McNemar's P<.0001). Of the 40 patients with poor glottic exposure on direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy improved the view in 31 (78%; 95% confidence interval 62% to 89%). Of the 158 patients with good glottic view on direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy worsened the view in 4 (3%; 95% confidence interval 0.7% to 6%). Conclusion: Video laryngoscopy affords more grade I and II views than direct laryngoscopy and improves glottic exposure in most patients with poor direct glottic visualization. In a small proportion of cases, glottic exposure is worse with video than direct laryngoscopy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)83-88
Number of pages6
JournalAnnals of Emergency Medicine
Volume56
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Laryngoscopes
Laryngoscopy
Tongue
Intubation
Hospital Emergency Service
Confidence Intervals
Physicians
Patient Positioning

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine

Cite this

Improved glottic exposure with the video MacIntosh laryngoscope in adult emergency department tracheal intubations. / Brown, Calvin A.; Bair, Aaron E; Pallin, Daniel J.; Laurin, Erik G; Walls, Ron M.

In: Annals of Emergency Medicine, Vol. 56, No. 2, 2010, p. 83-88.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{88f4db62aa084c1097343c5fe92ac260,
title = "Improved glottic exposure with the video MacIntosh laryngoscope in adult emergency department tracheal intubations",
abstract = "Study objective: Glottic visualization with video is superior to direct laryngoscopy in controlled operating room studies. However, glottic exposure with video laryngoscopy has not been evaluated in the emergency department (ED) setting, where blood, secretions, poor patient positioning, and physiologic derangement can complicate laryngoscopy. We measure the difference in glottic visualization with video versus direct laryngoscopy. Methods: We prospectively studied a convenience sample of tracheal intubations at 2 academic EDs. We performed laryngoscopy with the Karl Storz Video Macintosh Laryngoscope, which can be used for conventional direct laryngoscopy, as well as video laryngoscopy. We rated glottic visualization with the Cormack-Lehane (C-L) Scale, defining {"}good{"} visualization as C-L I or II and {"}poor{"} visualization as C-L III or IV. We compared glottic exposure between direct and video laryngoscopy, determining the proportion of poor direct visualizations improved to good visualization with video laryngoscopy. We also determined the proportion of good direct visualizations worsened to poor visualization by video laryngoscopy. Results: We report data on 198 patients, including 146 (74{\%}) medical, 51 (26{\%}) trauma, and 1 (0.51{\%}) unknown indications. All were tracheally intubated by emergency physicians. Postgraduate year 3 or 4 residents performed 102 (52.3{\%}) of the laryngoscopies, postgraduate year 2 residents performed 60 (30.8{\%}), interns performed 20 (10.3{\%}), attending physicians performed 9 (4.6{\%}), and operator experience and specialty were not reported in 4. Overall, good visualization (C-L grade I or II) was attained in 158 direct (80{\%}) versus 185 video laryngoscopies (93{\%}; McNemar's P<.0001). Of the 40 patients with poor glottic exposure on direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy improved the view in 31 (78{\%}; 95{\%} confidence interval 62{\%} to 89{\%}). Of the 158 patients with good glottic view on direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy worsened the view in 4 (3{\%}; 95{\%} confidence interval 0.7{\%} to 6{\%}). Conclusion: Video laryngoscopy affords more grade I and II views than direct laryngoscopy and improves glottic exposure in most patients with poor direct glottic visualization. In a small proportion of cases, glottic exposure is worse with video than direct laryngoscopy.",
author = "Brown, {Calvin A.} and Bair, {Aaron E} and Pallin, {Daniel J.} and Laurin, {Erik G} and Walls, {Ron M.}",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.01.033",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "56",
pages = "83--88",
journal = "Annals of Emergency Medicine",
issn = "0196-0644",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improved glottic exposure with the video MacIntosh laryngoscope in adult emergency department tracheal intubations

AU - Brown, Calvin A.

AU - Bair, Aaron E

AU - Pallin, Daniel J.

AU - Laurin, Erik G

AU - Walls, Ron M.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - Study objective: Glottic visualization with video is superior to direct laryngoscopy in controlled operating room studies. However, glottic exposure with video laryngoscopy has not been evaluated in the emergency department (ED) setting, where blood, secretions, poor patient positioning, and physiologic derangement can complicate laryngoscopy. We measure the difference in glottic visualization with video versus direct laryngoscopy. Methods: We prospectively studied a convenience sample of tracheal intubations at 2 academic EDs. We performed laryngoscopy with the Karl Storz Video Macintosh Laryngoscope, which can be used for conventional direct laryngoscopy, as well as video laryngoscopy. We rated glottic visualization with the Cormack-Lehane (C-L) Scale, defining "good" visualization as C-L I or II and "poor" visualization as C-L III or IV. We compared glottic exposure between direct and video laryngoscopy, determining the proportion of poor direct visualizations improved to good visualization with video laryngoscopy. We also determined the proportion of good direct visualizations worsened to poor visualization by video laryngoscopy. Results: We report data on 198 patients, including 146 (74%) medical, 51 (26%) trauma, and 1 (0.51%) unknown indications. All were tracheally intubated by emergency physicians. Postgraduate year 3 or 4 residents performed 102 (52.3%) of the laryngoscopies, postgraduate year 2 residents performed 60 (30.8%), interns performed 20 (10.3%), attending physicians performed 9 (4.6%), and operator experience and specialty were not reported in 4. Overall, good visualization (C-L grade I or II) was attained in 158 direct (80%) versus 185 video laryngoscopies (93%; McNemar's P<.0001). Of the 40 patients with poor glottic exposure on direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy improved the view in 31 (78%; 95% confidence interval 62% to 89%). Of the 158 patients with good glottic view on direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy worsened the view in 4 (3%; 95% confidence interval 0.7% to 6%). Conclusion: Video laryngoscopy affords more grade I and II views than direct laryngoscopy and improves glottic exposure in most patients with poor direct glottic visualization. In a small proportion of cases, glottic exposure is worse with video than direct laryngoscopy.

AB - Study objective: Glottic visualization with video is superior to direct laryngoscopy in controlled operating room studies. However, glottic exposure with video laryngoscopy has not been evaluated in the emergency department (ED) setting, where blood, secretions, poor patient positioning, and physiologic derangement can complicate laryngoscopy. We measure the difference in glottic visualization with video versus direct laryngoscopy. Methods: We prospectively studied a convenience sample of tracheal intubations at 2 academic EDs. We performed laryngoscopy with the Karl Storz Video Macintosh Laryngoscope, which can be used for conventional direct laryngoscopy, as well as video laryngoscopy. We rated glottic visualization with the Cormack-Lehane (C-L) Scale, defining "good" visualization as C-L I or II and "poor" visualization as C-L III or IV. We compared glottic exposure between direct and video laryngoscopy, determining the proportion of poor direct visualizations improved to good visualization with video laryngoscopy. We also determined the proportion of good direct visualizations worsened to poor visualization by video laryngoscopy. Results: We report data on 198 patients, including 146 (74%) medical, 51 (26%) trauma, and 1 (0.51%) unknown indications. All were tracheally intubated by emergency physicians. Postgraduate year 3 or 4 residents performed 102 (52.3%) of the laryngoscopies, postgraduate year 2 residents performed 60 (30.8%), interns performed 20 (10.3%), attending physicians performed 9 (4.6%), and operator experience and specialty were not reported in 4. Overall, good visualization (C-L grade I or II) was attained in 158 direct (80%) versus 185 video laryngoscopies (93%; McNemar's P<.0001). Of the 40 patients with poor glottic exposure on direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy improved the view in 31 (78%; 95% confidence interval 62% to 89%). Of the 158 patients with good glottic view on direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy worsened the view in 4 (3%; 95% confidence interval 0.7% to 6%). Conclusion: Video laryngoscopy affords more grade I and II views than direct laryngoscopy and improves glottic exposure in most patients with poor direct glottic visualization. In a small proportion of cases, glottic exposure is worse with video than direct laryngoscopy.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955299730&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955299730&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.01.033

DO - 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.01.033

M3 - Article

C2 - 20202720

AN - SCOPUS:77955299730

VL - 56

SP - 83

EP - 88

JO - Annals of Emergency Medicine

JF - Annals of Emergency Medicine

SN - 0196-0644

IS - 2

ER -