• Wonhee Kim, Hyuk Joong Choi, Taeho Lim, and Bo Seung Kang.
• Department of Emergency Medicine, College of Medicine, Hanyang University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
• Am J Emerg Med. 2014 Oct 1;32(10):1225-9.

PurposeWe hypothesized that novices would be able to use the McGrath MAC (Aircraft Medical Ltd, Edinburgh, UK) equally as well as the GlideScope Ranger (Verathon, Inc, Bothell, WA) for intubation in regular simulated airways.MethodsWe performed a prospective, randomized crossover study of 39 medical students using the McGrath MAC, GlideScope Ranger, and Macintosh in a manikin with 2 normal airways. The primary outcome was the intubation time. Secondary outcomes included the success rates and the overall glottic view of the 3 laryngoscopes.ResultsThe mean intubation times for each attempt with the McGrath MAC were 30.8 ± 16.9 seconds or less and did not differ significantly from those obtained with the GlideScope Ranger or the Macintosh in both airway scenarios (P = .18; P = .49). The mean success rates at each attempt with the McGrath MAC were 82.0% ± 38.8% or more, equal to the Macintosh and the GlideScope Ranger in both scenarios (P = .026; P = .72) except during the first intubation attempt in a normal airway (P = .008). The median grades of the glottic view visible at each intubation attempt with the McGrath Mac were Cormack-Lehane grade 1 (scenario 1: interquartile range, 1-1; scenario 2: interquartile range, 1-2), which was significantly better than the Macintosh laryngoscope in both scenarios. However, the McGrath Mac did not produce a better glottic view than the GlideScope Ranger with either scenario.ConclusionsThe intubation performance of novices using the McGrath MAC was equal to their performance using the GlideScope Ranger in regular simulated airways.Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

16 keywords...

hide…