Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22560464›Full record

ArticleAnnals of emergency medicine2012

A comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department.

John C Sakles, Jarrod Mosier, Stephen Chiu, Mari Cosentino, Leah Kalin

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of emergency medicine, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02208349 (King Video Laryngoscope Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation), which is not on this map. Cited by 57 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
57citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
21.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02208349 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2014, after this paper: background citation

King Video Laryngoscope Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorSaint Vincent Hospital, PennsylvaniaRan2014 to 2017Enrolled83ConditionsRespiratory FailureArmsKing Video Laryngoscope, traditional direct laryngoscopy (DL)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

57 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 187 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Airway registries in primarily adult, emergent endotracheal intubation: a scoping review.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2023
    Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

John C SaklesDepartment of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA. sakles@aemrc.arizona.edu
Jarrod Mosier
Stephen Chiu
Mari Cosentino
Leah Kalin
University of Arizona · US

Funding

SHORT-TERM TRAINING STUDENTS IN HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SCHOT35HL007479 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI GEOFFREY C GURTNER, JAMES Kuang-Jan LIAO · 1985 to 2026
$4.4M
NHLBI NIH HHS T35 HL007479
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

objectiveWe determine the proportion of successful intubations with the C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC) compared with the direct laryngoscope in emergency department (ED) intubations.

methodsThis was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data entered into a continuous quality improvement database during a 28-month period in an academic ED. After each intubation, the operator completed a standardized data form evaluating multiple aspects of the intubation, including patient demographics, indication for intubation, device(s) used, reason for device selection, difficult airway characteristics, number of attempts, and outcome of each attempt. Intubation was considered ultimately successful if the endotracheal tube was correctly inserted into the trachea with the initial device. An attempt was defined as insertion of the device into the mouth regardless of whether there was an attempt to pass the tube. The primary outcome measure was ultimate success. Secondary outcome measures were first-attempt success, Cormack-Lehane view, and esophageal intubation. Multivariate logistic regression analyses, with the inclusion of a propensity score, were performed for the outcome variables ultimate success and first-attempt success.

resultsDuring the 28-month study period, 750 intubations were performed with either the C-MAC with a size 3 or 4 blade or a direct laryngoscope with a Macintosh size 3 or 4 blade. Of these, 255 were performed with the C-MAC as the initial device and 495 with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope as the initial device. The C-MAC resulted in successful intubation in 248 of 255 cases (97.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 94.4% to 98.9%). A direct laryngoscope resulted in successful intubation in 418 of 495 cases (84.4%; 95% CI 81.0% to 87.5%). In the multivariate regression model, with a propensity score included, the C-MAC was positively predictive of ultimate success (odds ratio 12.7; 95% CI 4.1 to 38.8) and first-attempt success (odds ratio 2.2; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.8). When the C-MAC was used as a video laryngoscope, a Cormack-Lehane grade I or II view (video) was obtained in 117 of 125 cases (93.6%; 95% CI 87.8% to 97.2%), whereas when a direct laryngoscope was used, a grade I or II view was obtained in 410 of 495 cases (82.8%; 95% CI 79.2% to 86.1%). The C-MAC was associated with immediately recognized esophageal intubation in 4 of 255 cases (1.6%; 95% CI 0.4% to 4.0%), whereas a direct laryngoscope was associated with immediately recognized esophageal intubation in 24 of 495 cases (4.8%; 95% CI 3.1% to 7.1%).

conclusionWhen used for emergency intubations in the ED, the C-MAC was associated with a greater proportion of successful intubations and a greater proportion of Cormack-Lehane grade I or II views compared with a direct laryngoscope.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalLaryngoscopesAdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID22560464
PMCPMC4532403
OpenAlexW2066669772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.