Comparison of the C-MAC D-Blade Video Laryngoscope and the McCoy Laryngoscope in Difficult Airway Patients According to Arne Multivariate Risk Classification: A Randomised Prospective Trial

Abstract

Background: Difficult intubation is an important cause of morbidity and mortality during anaesthesia. Detection of patient with difficult  airway is very important. Arne multivariate risk classification score is one of the tests that is used to detect this difficult airway patients.  McCoy direct laryngoscope and the C‑MAC videolaryngoscope are parts of among the tools that are currently used for these patients. 

Aim: This study aimed to compare the intubation success and access the quality of difficult airway using the McCoy direct laryngoscope  and the C‑MAC video laryngoscope. 

Methods: Included in this study were 100 patients scheduled for elective surgery, ASA I–III, who had  the Arne multivariate risk classification score >11. The patients were randomly divided into the C-MAC D-Blade video laryngoscope (n =  50) and the McCoy laryngoscope (n = 50). The Mallampati score, Arne multivariate score, intubation success, required time for intubation, number of intubation attempts, required time to visualize the glottis, need for auxiliary equipment, and complications were recorded.   

Results: No differences in the demographic data were observed between the two groups (P > 0.05). In addition, no differences were  observed between the groups in the required time to visualize the glottis (P = 0.801) or the Arne score (P = 0.619). The rate of use of gum  elastic bougies in Grup C-MAC was lower (P = 0.014), and the intubation success rate was higher during the first attempt (P = 0.016). The  intubation time was longer in the McCoy group (P = 0.017). 

Conclusion: The C-MAC D-Blade video laryngoscope was superior to the  McCoy direct laryngoscope for difficult‑to‑intubate patients due to the shorter required time for intubation, higher intubation success  rate, and lesser need for auxiliary equipment.