Comparison of KingVision videolaryngoscope channelled blade with Tuoren videolaryngoscope non-channelled blade in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by non-anaesthesiologists and experienced anaesthesiologists: A prospective randomised crossover mannequin study

Anju Gupta, Anjan Trikha, Arshad Ayub, Sulagna Bhattacharjee, Ajisha Aravindan, Nishkarsh Gupta, Kelika Prakash, Richa Aggarwal, Venkata Ganesh, Kapil Dev Soni, Rajeev Kumar Malhotra

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations

Abstract

Purpose: A videolaryngoscope has been recommended for intubation in the COVID-19 scenario but the videolaryngoscope providing optimal intubation conditions is not ascertained. We compared KingVision channelled blade with a non-Channelled videolaryngoscope for intubation times in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by both anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologists. Methods: This prospective randomised cross over mannequin study was conducted in a skill training lab. 25 anaesthesiologists and 25 non-anaesthesiologists donned in standard personal protective equipment performed 100 intubations with KingVision and Tuoren videolaryngoscopes in a mannequin covered with a transparent plastic sheet. The total intubation time, percentage of glottic opening scores, first attempt success rates were assessed. Results: The mean difference in intubation times in anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologist less with KingVision videolaryngoscope (21.1s; 95% CI 9.6–32.6s vs. 35.9s; 95% CI 24.4–47.4 s; P = 0.001). Percentage of glottic opening score was significantly better with KingVision by non-anaesthesiologists (60; IQR 42.5 to 75 vs. 70; IQR 50 to 100; P = 0.019). KingVision provided superior first attempt success rate in non-anaesthesiologists (84% vs. 61.9%; P = 0.02) and anaesthesiologists (96% vs. 76%; P = 0.12). Conclusion: KingVision channelled videolaryngoscope provided faster intubation times, glottic views and first attempt success rates in a simulated COVID-19 scenario in manikins and might be preferred over videolaryngoscopes with non-channelled blade. The findings need to be further verified in humans. Trial registration: ctri.nic.in identifier: REF/2020/05/033338.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)42-48
Number of pages7
JournalTrends in Anaesthesia and Critical Care
Volume38
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2021

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this