A comparison of the king vision® and glidescope® video intubation systems in patients at risk for difficult intubation
Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care
Airway management; Difficult airway; Difficult tracheal intubation; Indirect laryngoscopy; Video laryngoscopy; Video-assisted laryngoscopy (VAL)
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd Background: One factor that contributes to the difficulty during intubation is poor visualization of the airway anatomy during laryngoscopy. Aim: To compare the efficacy and first-pass success rate of the King Vision® Video Laryngoscopes against the GlideScope® Video Laryngoscope in patients with anticipated difficult airways. Methods: 225 adult patients scheduled for surgery requiring general anesthesia and tracheal intubation that met ≥2 of the following inclusion criteria: Mallampati classification (MP) III-IV, inter-incisor distance < 4 cm, neck circumference > 43 cm, and/or thyromental distance < 6 cm were randomized into 3 groups: GlideScope® (GS; n = 75), King Vision® – Channeled (KV-Ch; n = 75), and King Vision® – Non-Channeled (KV-NCh; n = 75). Intubation time and number of intubation attempts were collectively considered as the primary objective, amongst resident anesthesiologists. Results: The rate of success of tracheal intubation was 96% for GS, 81.3% for KV-Ch, and 96% for KV-NCh. Furthermore, first-pass success was highest for the KV-NCh at 89.3%, with GS and KV-Ch having a significant difference (P = 0.0083). Conclusion: The GS and KV-NCh performed similarly in facilitating successful tracheal intubation during the first attempt. In contrast, the KV-Ch was less successful overall.
Markham, T., Nwokolo, O., Guzman-Reyes, S., Medina-Rivera, G., Gumbert, S., Cai, C., Burnett, T., Syed, T., & Hagberg, C. (2019). A comparison of the king vision® and glidescope® video intubation systems in patients at risk for difficult intubation. Trends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care, 28 (). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tacc.2019.07.001