Comparison of the time to successful endotracheal intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope or KingVision video laryngoscope in the emergency department: A prospective observational study

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Intubation is a skill that must be mastered by the emergency physician (EP). Today, we have a host of video laryngoscopes which have been developed to make intubations easier and faster. It may seem that in a busy emergency department (ED), a video laryngoscope (VL) in the hands of an EP would help him intubate patients faster compared to the traditional direct laryngoscope (DL). Our goal was to compare the time taken to successfully intubate patients coming in ED using King Vision VL (KVVL) and DL.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a prospective observational study on patients coming to the ED requiring emergent intubation. They were allocated one to one alternatively into two groups – KVVL and DL. Accordingly, KVVL or DL intubations were carried out by the EPs. Time taken to intubate, first-pass success, and crossover between laryngoscopes were recorded.

RESULTS: A total of 350 patients were enrolled in the study. Overall, mean time to intubate patients using the DL was 15.85 s (95% confidence interval [CI] 14.05–17.65), while the meantime with KVVL was 13.75 s (95% CI 12.32–15.18) (P = 0.084). The overall first-pass success rates with DL and KVVL were 89.94% and 85.16%, respectively (P = 0.076). A total of 7.43% (95% CI 5.12–10.66) patients had crossover between laryngoscopes.

CONCLUSION: We found the KVVL to have a similar performance to the DL in terms of time for intubations and ease in difficult airways. We consider the KVVL a useful device for EDs to equip themselves with.

How to cite this article: Mallick T, Verma A, Jaiswal S, Haldar M, Sheikh WR, Vishen A, et al. Comparison of the time to successful endotracheal intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope or KingVision video laryngoscope in the emergency department: A prospective observational study. Turk J Emerg Med 2020;20:22-7.

Mallick T was the primary investigator ( first author) and designed the study. Verma A (corresponding author) contributed towards study design, data collection, analysis and manuscript writing. Mallick T and Verma A were the lead in writing the manuscript. The remaining authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis and literature review of the manuscript.

The authors have no competing interests.

None.