Skip Navigation


BJA Advance Access originally published online on July 15, 2009
British Journal of Anaesthesia 2009 103(3):440-445; doi:10.1093/bja/aep191
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
103/3/440    most recent
aep191v1
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in BJA
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Walker, L.
Right arrow Articles by McLernon, D. J.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Walker, L.
Right arrow Articles by McLernon, D. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author [2009]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournal.org

Randomized controlled trial of intubation with the McGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope by inexperienced anaesthetists

L. Walker1,*, W. Brampton1, M. Halai1, C. Hoy1, E. Lee1, I. Scott1 and D. J. McLernon2

1 Department of Anaesthesia, Aberdeen Royal Infirmary, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZN, UK
2 Medical Statistics Team, Section of Population Health, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK

* Corresponding author. E-mail: lewis.walker{at}nhs.net

Background: The McGrath® Series 5 videolaryngoscope might reduce the incidence of unexpected difficult tracheal intubation. If it also performs as well as a standard laryngoscope during uncomplicated intubations, there would be an argument for the McGrath® to become the laryngoscope of choice in higher risk settings, such as rapid sequence induction by inexperienced anaesthetists. Therefore, we compared the McGrath and the Macintosh laryngoscopes during routine tracheal intubation performed by inexperienced anaesthetists.

Methods: Single-blind randomized controlled trial with 120 adult patients allocated to intubation by first-year anaesthetic trainees, using a McGrath® or Macintosh laryngoscope. The primary outcome was time to intubation. Secondary outcomes were quality of view at laryngoscopy and evidence of differential learning between using the two laryngoscopes. A Cox proportional hazards model was used to determine the effect of the laryngoscopes on time to intubation.

Results: Duration of intubation was significantly longer (P<0.001) in the McGrath® group [median (IQR); 47.0 (39.0–60.0) vs 29.5 (23.0–36.8) s]. There were no significant differences in other outcomes, including grade of laryngoscopy view, visual confirmation of tube placement, number of laryngoscopies, or complications (oesophageal intubation, hypoxaemia, and airway trauma). There was no differential learning effect.

Conclusions: There were no advantages to using the McGrath® laryngoscope for uncomplicated tracheal intubation and duration of intubation was longer, so it should not be used as a first-line laryngoscope instrument by inexperienced anaesthetists.

Trials Registry: This trial was registered before onset of participation at ClinicalTrials.gov. Identification no. 08-so802-4. URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00633867?term=08-so802-4&rank=1.

Keywords: airway; equipment, laryngoscopes; larynx, laryngoscopy


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in BJA:

In the September 2009 BJA ...

BJA 2009 103: xii. [Extract] [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JWatch Emergency Med.Home page
Use of the McGrath Video Laryngoscope by Inexperienced Intubators
Journal Watch Emergency Medicine, September 4, 2009; 2009(904): 3 - 3.
[Full Text]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.