• Ankur Verma, Sanjay Jaiswal, Anubhooti Mahawar, Maheshwar Lal, Saumya Gupta, and Nikit Mittal.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Max Super Specialty Hospital, Patparganj, New Delhi, India. Electronic address: anksv25@gmail.com.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2025 Feb 1; 88: 798379-83.

IntroductionIn modern times, the emergency physician (EP) has access to a host of video laryngoscopes (VL). There are different makes, models, angulations in the blades provided by different VLs. The blades may be channeled or non-channeled. In busy emergency departments (ED), ease and speed of intubations in managing the emergent airways may impact the outcome for the patient.ObjectiveThe primary objective of our study was to compare the rates of first pass success using the channeled versus the non-channeled blades of the KingVision VL (KVVL).MethodsThis was a randomized controlled single blinded study. All patients requiring emergent definitive airway management were included in the study. They were randomized into 2 groups - channeled and non-channeled KVVL. Intubations were carried out accordingly. First pass success, time taken to intubate and crossover between the blades were recorded.ResultsA total of 130 patients were enrolled in the study. First pass success for the channeled and non-channeled KVVL was 55.4 % and 81.6 % (p = 0.005) respectively. The mean time to intubate using the channeled and non-channeled KVVL were 24.69 s [95 % CI 20.25-29.13] and 28.95 s [95 % CI 23.64-34.26] (p = 0.207) respectively. A total of 33.07 % patients had crossovers between the blades.ConclusionWe found the non-channeled blades to have a significantly higher percentage of first pass success. Performance with respect to time to intubate was similar between the two. We recommend using the non-channeled KVVL for intubations in the EDs.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

19 keywords...

hide…