• Koorosh Ahmadi, Mohsen Ebrahimi, Amir Masoud Hashemian, Saeed Sarshar, and Vafa Rahimi-Movaghar.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, Alborz University of Medical Sciences, Karaj, Iran.
• Acta Med Iran. 2015 Dec 1; 53 (12): 738-42.

AbstractMacintosh direct laryngoscope has been the most widely used device for tracheal intubation. GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) has been recently introduced as an alternative device for performing intubation; however, its validity in emergency settings has not been thoroughly evaluated. The aim of this study was to compare Macintosh direct laryngoscope versus GVL for emergency endotracheal intubation. This quasi-randomized clinical trial was performed on 97 patients referred to Imam Reza Hospital whom all needed emergency intubation in 2011. Patients were divided into two groups of the easy airway and difficult airway; intubation was performed for patients with direct laryngoscopy or GVL. Then, the patients were evaluated in terms of demographic characteristics, successful intubation rate and intubation time. Data was analyzed by SPSS software 16. There was no significant difference in demographic characteristics of the patients in both easy airway and difficult airway groups who intubated with direct laryngoscopy and GVL methods (P>0.05). In difficult airway group, a significant difference was found in successful intubation at the first attempt (60.9% vs. 87.5%; P=0.036), overall intubation time (32.7 ± 14.58 vs. 22.5±7.88; P<0.001) and first attempt intubation time (28.43 ± 12.51 vs. 21.48±7.8; P=0.001) between direct laryngoscopy and GVL. These variables were not significantly different between two methods in easy airway group. According to the results, GVL can be a useful alternative to direct laryngoscopy in emergency situations and especially in cases with a difficult airway.

16 keywords...

hide…