Skip to main content

Table 2 Comparison of the five devices

From: Comparison of four channelled videolaryngoscopes to Macintosh laryngoscope for simulated intubation of critically ill patients: the randomized MACMAN2 trial

  Macintosh n  =  79 AirTraq n  =  79 KingVision n  =  79 Pentax AWS200 n  =  79 VividTrac n  =  79 p value
First-pass success 56 (70.8%) 77 (97.5%) 77 (97.5%) 77 (97.5%) 73 (92.4%) < 0.001
Number of attempts before success
 1 56 (70.8%) 77 (97.5%) 77 (97.5%) 77 (97.5%) 73 (92.4%) < 0.001
 2 11 (14.0%) 0 (0%) 2 (2.5%) 2 (2.5%) 1 (1.3%)
 3 11 (14.0%) 1 (1.3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 4 (6.3%)
 4 1 (1.2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Time to intubation, s, mean  ±  SD 92.7  ±  59.8 67.7  ±  30.7 66.4  ±  24.1 62.8  ±  33.9 82.9  ±  42.8 < 0.001
Lowest SpO2, median [IQR] 86 [81–89] 88 [87–90] 88 [86–89] 89 [87–90] 86 [85–89] $
Bougie use 32 (40.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) < 0.001
BURP manoeuvre 18 (22.8%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1.3%) *
Percentage glottic opening, mean  ±  SD 57.1  ±  25.9% 85.5  ±  15.2% 91.0  ±  13.3% 89.7  ±  13.5% 79.3  ±  20.9% < 0.001
Cormack–Lehane grade
 1 23 (30%) 69 (90%) 72 (95%) 71 (91%) 62 (80%) < 0.001
 2 39 (51%) 8 (10%) 4 (5%) 7 (9%) 15 (19%)
 3 13 (16%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
 4 2 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (1%)
Ease of device usea 6.35  ±  2.20 7.09  ±  1.59 7.41  ±  1.59 7.93  ±  1.47 6.20  ±  2.05 < 0.001
Oesophageal intubation 10 (12.66%) 1 (1.27%) 1 (1.28%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) *
Selective intubation 6 (7.59%) 2 (2.53%) 3 (3.8%) 5 (6.3%) 5 (6.3%) *
Blade placed under the epiglottis 8 (10%) 56 (71%) 29 (37%) 79 (100%) 64 (81%) < 0.001
  1. The data are the mean  ±  SD or number (%)
  2. BURP backwards, upwards, and rightwards pressure applied to the larynx
  3. aRated by the participants on a scale from 0 to 10
  4. *The number of events was too small to allow a meaningful analysis
  5. $Not compared as SpO2 correlates with intubation time in a mannikin study