Volume 28, Issue 12 pp. 1148-1153
RESEARCH REPORT

Comparative evaluation of CMAC and Truview picture capture device for endotracheal intubation in neonates and infants undergoing elective surgeries: A prospective randomized control trial

Anju Gupta

Corresponding Author

Anju Gupta

VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India

Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalya, New Delhi, India

Correspondence

Dr Anju Gupta, 437 pocket A, Sarita Vihar, New Delhi-110076, India.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Geeta Kamal

Geeta Kamal

Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalya, New Delhi, India

Search for more papers by this author
Aikta Gupta

Aikta Gupta

Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalya, New Delhi, India

Search for more papers by this author
Nidhi Sehgal

Nidhi Sehgal

Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalya, New Delhi, India

Baba Saheb Ambedkar Hospital, New Delhi, India

Search for more papers by this author
Sapna Bhatla

Sapna Bhatla

VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, India

Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalya, New Delhi, India

Search for more papers by this author
Rajeev Kumar

Rajeev Kumar

Scientist (Statistician), DRBRAIRCH, AIIMS, New Delhi, India

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 04 December 2018
Citations: 8

Funding information:

The study was funded by departmental resources.

The study was conducted at Chacha Nehru Bal Chikitsalya, Geeta Colony, New Delhi.
Section Editor: Britta von Ungern-Sternberg

Summary

Background

Videolaryngoscopy has an established role in difficult airway management in adults. However, there is limited literature to support their efficacy in children. The Truview Picture Capture Device has shown promising results for endotracheal intubation in infants in the past. The CMAC videolaryngoscope has launched its novel infant Miller blade, but its performance has not been assessed clinically for routine intubation in infants and neonates. We hypothesized that the CMAC videolaryngoscope would reduce the total time to intubation as compared to the Truview Picture Capture Device in neonates and infants.

Methods

After parental informed consent, 80 prospective infants posted for surgical procedures under general anesthesia were randomized to undergo intubation with either of the two. The two videolaryngoscopes were also compared in terms of time required for glottis view and intubation (primary outcome), modified Cormack and Lehane grade, first attempt and overall success rate, ease of intubation, number of attempts, and any complications.

Results

The CMAC significantly reduced the time required for glottic view [8 s (5.25-9) vs 9 s (6.5-12); P = 0.02] and intubation [22 s (18-26) vs 26 s (21.5-32); P = 0.003]. The median difference (95% CI) for time to tracheal intubation and time to glottic view was 4 s (1-7) and 1 (0-4). It also improved the ease of intubation, the Cormack-Lehane grades, and first attempt success rate. Intubation with the CMAC was possible in 100% cases, whereas only 92.5% of patients could be intubated with the Truview. The failed intubations with the Truview could be successfully intubated with the CMAC.

Conclusion

The CMAC Miller blade reduced the total time taken for tracheal intubation and intubation difficulty as compared to the Truview Picture Capture Device and may be a better tool for intubation in infants.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.