Scholarlink

Background <p>Video laryngoscopes are widely used for tracheal intubation, particularly in challenging airway scenarios. The McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE<sup>®</sup>, and AceScope<sup>®</sup> are popular video laryngoscopes with different design features. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and usability of these three devices in novice healthcare providers during simulated tracheal intubation scenarios employing a manikin.</p> Methods <p>Sixty novice healthcare providers, including nurses and pharmacists, were enrolled in this randomized crossover study. Participants performed tracheal intubation using the McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE, and AceScope in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models. Primary outcomes were intubation success rate and time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included user preferences, device ease of use, and the incidence of dental injuries.</p> Results <p>The AIRWAY SCOPE demonstrated the shortest intubation time in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models (14.90 ± 1.76&#xa0;s and 23.80 ± 2.43&#xa0;s, respectively), followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. All devices exhibited high success rates, and there were no significant differences in perceived difficulty among the three video laryngoscopes. The incidence of dental injuries was generally comparable among the devices. However, in the cervical spine immobilization model, the AceScope demonstrated a significantly higher rate of dental injuries compared to the McGrath MAC (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), highlighting a potential concern for clinical practice.</p> Conclusions <p>The AIRWAY SCOPE was the most efficient video laryngoscope in terms of intubation time, followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. However, all devices showed high success rates and no significant differences in perceived difficulty. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings and investigate the impact of device-specific features on intubation outcomes and dental injury incidence.</p> Trial registration <p>Registration number: jRCT1030240598 (<a href="https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422">https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422</a>) The registration date of the clinical trial is January 8, 2025.UMIN000050394.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

A comparison of McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE®, and AceScope® video laryngoscopes in novice healthcare providers: a randomized crossover simulation study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年4月25日

查看全文
  • Musashi Yahagi,
  • Kyuma Omi,
  • Yuichi Yaguchi

摘要

Background

Video laryngoscopes are widely used for tracheal intubation, particularly in challenging airway scenarios. The McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE®, and AceScope® are popular video laryngoscopes with different design features. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness and usability of these three devices in novice healthcare providers during simulated tracheal intubation scenarios employing a manikin.

Methods

Sixty novice healthcare providers, including nurses and pharmacists, were enrolled in this randomized crossover study. Participants performed tracheal intubation using the McGrath MAC, AIRWAY SCOPE, and AceScope in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models. Primary outcomes were intubation success rate and time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included user preferences, device ease of use, and the incidence of dental injuries.

Results

The AIRWAY SCOPE demonstrated the shortest intubation time in both normal airway and cervical spine immobilization models (14.90 ± 1.76 s and 23.80 ± 2.43 s, respectively), followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. All devices exhibited high success rates, and there were no significant differences in perceived difficulty among the three video laryngoscopes. The incidence of dental injuries was generally comparable among the devices. However, in the cervical spine immobilization model, the AceScope demonstrated a significantly higher rate of dental injuries compared to the McGrath MAC (p < 0.05), highlighting a potential concern for clinical practice.

Conclusions

The AIRWAY SCOPE was the most efficient video laryngoscope in terms of intubation time, followed by the McGrath MAC and AceScope. However, all devices showed high success rates and no significant differences in perceived difficulty. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings and investigate the impact of device-specific features on intubation outcomes and dental injury incidence.

Trial registration

Registration number: jRCT1030240598 (https://jrct.niph.go.jp/re/reports/detail/91422) The registration date of the clinical trial is January 8, 2025.UMIN000050394.