A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation

Background and Aims: An efficient neonatal airway management is peculiarly challenging even in the most experienced hands. Considering the recent interest in assessing the performance of various video-laryngoscopes (VL) in pediatric cohort, the prospective randomized study was contemplated to stage a comparative evaluation of C-MAC with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation. Material and Methods: 150 neonates were randomized to undergo intubation with either the C-MAC VL (n = 75) or the Miller laryngoscope (n = 75) performed by an experienced anesthesiologist in a tertiary care perioperative setting. The percentage of glottic opening (POGO), time to best glottic view (TTBGV), time to intubation (TTI), number of attempts, optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM) employed, and the complications were assessed and compared between the two groups. Results: C-MAC group demonstrated a significantly higher POGO, compared to the Miller group (88 ± 26.7%;76.8 ± 32.1%, respectively, P = 0.022). TTBGV was significantly lower in the C-MAC (7.7 ± 0.1s) group as opposed to the Miller group (11.3 ± 1.1s). The C-MAC group displayed higher TTI values compared to the Miller group (25.4 ± 1.6s; 19.7 ± 1.2s, respectively, P < 0.01).The first-attempt intubation success rate and the number of attempts were comparable in both the groups. OELM was required in 24% of the patients in the Miller group as opposed to 10.7% in the C-MAC group (P = 0.031).Higher patient percentage in the C-MAC group required the need of stylet for assisting a successful intubation, although the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Despite an improved view of the glottis, the TTI was higher for C-MAC compared to direct laryngoscopy with a comparable first-attempt success rate in the two techniques.

[1]  P. Kapoor,et al.  Comment on a published article: The VL3 videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults: A prospective pilot study , 2021, Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia.

[2]  R. Magoon,et al.  Safeguarding anaesthesia research from spin. , 2020, British journal of anaesthesia.

[3]  O. Hung Can’t see for looking: tracheal intubation using video laryngoscopes , 2020, Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d'anesthésie.

[4]  N. Dave,et al.  Efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopy-guided verbal feedback to teach neonatal and infant intubation. A prospective randomised cross over study , 2019, Indian journal of anaesthesia.

[5]  S. Myatra,et al.  Use of videolaryngoscopy as a teaching tool for novices performing tracheal intubation results in greater first pass success in neonates and infants , 2019, Indian journal of anaesthesia.

[6]  P. Khanna,et al.  Evaluation of performance of C-MAC® video laryngoscope Miller blade size zero for endotracheal intubation in preterm and ex-preterm infants: A retrospective analysis , 2019, Indian journal of anaesthesia.

[7]  D. Dwivedi,et al.  Anesthesia challenges for emergency surgery in a pediatric patient with congenital laryngomalacia , 2018, Saudi journal of anaesthesia.

[8]  V. Bennett,et al.  Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for emergency orotracheal intubation outside the operating room: a systematic review and meta‐analysis , 2018, British journal of anaesthesia.

[9]  D. Jain,et al.  Comparison of intubation conditions with CMAC Miller videolaryngoscope and conventional Miller laryngoscope in lateral position in infants: A prospective randomized trial , 2018, Paediatric anaesthesia.

[10]  Ranju Singh,et al.  A randomised trial to compare Truview PCD®, C-MAC® and Macintosh laryngoscopes in paediatric airway management. , 2017, Asian journal of anesthesiology.

[11]  P. Kapoor,et al.  Airway Management of the Cardiac Surgical Patients: Current Perspective , 2017, Annals of cardiac anaesthesia.

[12]  C. Lachance,et al.  Learning Neonatal Intubation Using the Videolaryngoscope: A Randomized Trial on Mannequins , 2016, Simulation in healthcare : journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare.

[13]  J. Punj,et al.  Comparison of the Success of Two Techniques for the Endotracheal Intubation with C-MAC Video Laryngoscope Miller Blade in Children: A Prospective Randomized Study , 2016, Anesthesiology research and practice.

[14]  C. O. Kamlin,et al.  Videolaryngoscopy to Teach Neonatal Intubation: A Randomized Trial , 2015, Pediatrics.

[15]  M. Pammi,et al.  Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in neonates. , 2015, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[16]  Y. Huang,et al.  Pediatric video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope: a meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials , 2014, Paediatric anaesthesia.

[17]  Y. M. Zhang,et al.  Comparison of the intubation with the Storz video laryngoscope and standard direct laryngoscopy in pediatric patients , 2009, Paediatric anaesthesia.

[18]  A. Vlatten,et al.  A comparison of the STORZ video laryngoscope and standard direct laryngoscopy for intubation in the Pediatric airway – a randomized clinical trial , 2009, Paediatric anaesthesia.

[19]  J. Fiadjoe,et al.  Management of the difficult infant airway with the Storz Video Laryngoscope: a case series. , 2009, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[20]  G. Berci,et al.  A Videolaryngoscopy Technique for the Intubation of the Newborn: Preliminary Report , 2009, Pediatrics.

[21]  N. Page,et al.  Intubation complications in the critically ill child. , 1998, AACN clinical issues.