open access

Vol 6, No 1 (2021)
Research paper
Published online: 2021-02-15
Get Citation

Airtraq® versus Macintosh laryngoscope for airway management during general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Maciej Maslanka12, Jacek Smereka23, Michal Pruc2, Oliver Robak4, Kecskés Attila5, Lukasz Szarpak126, Kurt Ruetzler7
DOI: 10.5603/DEMJ.a2021.0001
·
Disaster Emerg Med J 2021;6(1):1-9.
Affiliations
  1. Maria Skłodowska-Curie Medical Academy in Warsaw, Poland
  2. Polish Society of Disaster Medicine, Warsaw, Poland
  3. Department of Emergency Medical Service, Wroclaw Medical University, Warsaw, Poland
  4. Department of Medicine I, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
  5. NATO Centre of Excellence for Military Medicine, Budapest, Hungary
  6. Bialystok Oncology Center, Bialystok, Poland
  7. Departments of Outcomes Research and General Anesthesiology, Anesthesiology Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

open access

Vol 6, No 1 (2021)
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Published online: 2021-02-15

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Despite the introduction of supraglottic devices for ventilation, endotracheal intubation is still a gold standard for airway management in both prehospital and operating theatre conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate the effectiveness and safety of Airtraq vs. Macintosh laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation during general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The current issue of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of science, Scopus (from database inception to October 20, 2020) was searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscope were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were the success rate of first attempt intubation and intubation time. Secondary outcomes were overall intubation success rate, malposition, and adverse events. Review Manager 5.4 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible RCT. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the review for data extraction. First attempt success rate was 85.6% for ATQ vs. 68.4% for MAC (OR = 3.00; 95% CI: 1.37, 6.60; p = 0.006; I2 = 63%). The use of ATQ and MAC for intubation in cervical spine immobilization was associated with the effectiveness of the first intubation attempt at 98.6% vs. 71.1% (OR = 16.40; 95% CI: 3.55, 78.87; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Intubation time with ATQ was shorter than with MAC (MD = -3.19; 95% CI: -9.33, 2.95; p = 0.31; I2 = 97%). The endotracheal intubation during cervical spinal intubation was associated with significantly shorter procedurę duration for ATQ than for MAC (MD = -10.30; 95% CI: -18.43, -2.18; p = 0.01; I2 = 74%). The total efficacy of intubation, which for ATQ and MAC varied and was 86.7% vs. 80.6% respectively (OR = 2.88; 95% CI: 1.61, 5.13; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, we conclude that ATQ can reduce the failed first intubation attempt, especially in cervical manual inline stabilization patients, and reduces the time needed to obtain airway management, but does not provide significant benefits on other adverse events associated with tracheal intubation. Further studies are needed to demonstrate whether severe adverse events are significantly different between the two devices.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Despite the introduction of supraglottic devices for ventilation, endotracheal intubation is still a gold standard for airway management in both prehospital and operating theatre conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate the effectiveness and safety of Airtraq vs. Macintosh laryngoscope for endotracheal intubation during general anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The current issue of Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of science, Scopus (from database inception to October 20, 2020) was searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscope were included in this meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were the success rate of first attempt intubation and intubation time. Secondary outcomes were overall intubation success rate, malposition, and adverse events. Review Manager 5.4 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible RCT. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in the review for data extraction. First attempt success rate was 85.6% for ATQ vs. 68.4% for MAC (OR = 3.00; 95% CI: 1.37, 6.60; p = 0.006; I2 = 63%). The use of ATQ and MAC for intubation in cervical spine immobilization was associated with the effectiveness of the first intubation attempt at 98.6% vs. 71.1% (OR = 16.40; 95% CI: 3.55, 78.87; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). Intubation time with ATQ was shorter than with MAC (MD = -3.19; 95% CI: -9.33, 2.95; p = 0.31; I2 = 97%). The endotracheal intubation during cervical spinal intubation was associated with significantly shorter procedurę duration for ATQ than for MAC (MD = -10.30; 95% CI: -18.43, -2.18; p = 0.01; I2 = 74%). The total efficacy of intubation, which for ATQ and MAC varied and was 86.7% vs. 80.6% respectively (OR = 2.88; 95% CI: 1.61, 5.13; p < 0.001; I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, we conclude that ATQ can reduce the failed first intubation attempt, especially in cervical manual inline stabilization patients, and reduces the time needed to obtain airway management, but does not provide significant benefits on other adverse events associated with tracheal intubation. Further studies are needed to demonstrate whether severe adverse events are significantly different between the two devices.

Get Citation

Keywords

airway management, endotracheal intubation, laryngoscope, systematic review, meta-analysis

Supp./Additional Files (1)
Supplementary digital content
Download
3MB
About this article
Title

Airtraq® versus Macintosh laryngoscope for airway management during general anesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Journal

Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal

Issue

Vol 6, No 1 (2021)

Article type

Research paper

Pages

1-9

Published online

2021-02-15

DOI

10.5603/DEMJ.a2021.0001

Bibliographic record

Disaster Emerg Med J 2021;6(1):1-9.

Keywords

airway management
endotracheal intubation
laryngoscope
systematic review
meta-analysis

Authors

Maciej Maslanka
Jacek Smereka
Michal Pruc
Oliver Robak
Kecskés Attila
Lukasz Szarpak
Kurt Ruetzler

References (37)
  1. Chen X, Jiao J, Cong X, et al. A comparison of the performance of the I-gel™ vs. the LMA-S™during anesthesia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One. 2013; 8(8): e71910.
  2. Saasouh W, Laffey K, Turan A, et al. Degree of obesity is not associated with more than one intubation attempt: a large centre experience. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120(5): 1110–1116.
  3. Higgs A, McGrath BA, Goddard C, et al. Difficult Airway Society, Intensive Care Society, Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine, Royal College of Anaesthetists. Guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120(2): 323–352.
  4. Szarpak L. Laryngoscopes for difficult airway scenarios: a comparison of the available devices. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2018; 15(9): 631–643.
  5. Meng L, Qiu H, Wan Li, et al. Intubation and Ventilation amid the COVID-19 Outbreak: Wuhan's Experience. Anesthesiology. 2020; 132(6): 1317–1332.
  6. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 1.
  7. Savović J, Weeks L, Sterne JAC, et al. Evaluation of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias in randomized trials: focus groups, online survey, proposed recommendations and their implementation. Syst Rev. 2014; 3: 37.
  8. Ludwin K, Bialka S, Czyzewski L, et al. Video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of adult patients with suspected/ confirmed COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Disaster and Emergency Medicine Journal. 2020.
  9. Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5: 13.
  10. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002; 21(11): 1539–1558.
  11. Higgins JP, Green S. Eds.), Cochran Handbook for Systematic Review of Interventions: Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies (5.0.0 ed. ), John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2008: Hoboken.
  12. Abdallah SI, Gaballah KM. Endotracheal Intubation Criteria and Stress Response: Airtraq versus Macintosh Laryngoscopes - A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial. Anesth Essays Res. 2019; 13(3): 430–436.
  13. Al-Ghamdi AA, El Tahan MR, Khidr AM. Comparison of the Macintosh, GlideScope®, Airtraq®, and King Vision™ laryngoscopes in routine airway management. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016; 82(12): 1278–1287.
  14. Bhandari G, Shahi KS, Asad M, et al. Airtraq(®) versus Macintosh laryngoscope: A comparative study in tracheal intubation. Anesth Essays Res. 2013; 7(2): 232–236.
  15. Chalkeidis O, Kotsovolis G, Kalakonas A, et al. A comparison between the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes for routine airway management by experienced anesthesiologists: a randomized clinical trial. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan. 2010; 48(1): 15–20.
  16. Çolak A, Çopuroğlu E, Yılmaz A, et al. A Comparison of the Effects of Different Types of Laryngoscope on the Cervical Motions: Randomized Clinical Trial. Balkan Med J. 2015; 32(2): 176–182.
  17. Ertürk T, Deniz S, Şimşek F, et al. Comparison of the Macintosh and Airtraq Laryngoscopes in Endotracheal Intubation Success. Turk J Anaesthesiol Reanim. 2015; 43(3): 181–187.
  18. Ferrando C, Aguilar G, Belda FJ. Comparison of the Laryngeal View during Tracheal Intubation Using Airtraq and Macintosh Laryngoscopes by Unskillful Anesthesiology Residents: A Clinical Study. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2011; 2011: 301057.
  19. Hindman BJ, Santoni BG, Puttlitz CM, et al. Intubation biomechanics: laryngoscope force and cervical spine motion during intubation with Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes. Anesthesiology. 2014; 121(2): 260–271.
  20. Hosalli V, Arjun BK, Ambi U, et al. Comparison of Airtraq™, McCoy™ and Macintosh laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilisation: A randomised clinical trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2017; 61(4): 332–337.
  21. Koh JC, Lee JS, Lee YW, et al. Comparison of the laryngeal view during intubation using Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization and mouth opening limitation. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2010; 59(5): 314–318.
  22. Maharaj CH, Buckley E, Harte BH, et al. Endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a comparison of macintosh and airtraq laryngoscopes. Anesthesiology. 2007; 107(1): 53–59.
  23. Maharaj CH, Costello JF, Harte BH, et al. Evaluation of the Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients at increased risk for difficult tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia. 2008; 63(2): 182–188.
  24. Maharaj CH, O'Croinin D, Curley G, et al. A comparison of tracheal intubation using the Airtraq or the Macintosh laryngoscope in routine airway management: A randomised, controlled clinical trial. Anaesthesia. 2006; 61(11): 1093–1099.
  25. McElwain J, Laffey JG. Comparison of the C-MAC®, Airtraq®, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients undergoing tracheal intubation with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth. 2011; 107(2): 258–264.
  26. Nishiyama T. Comparison of the Airtraq, Airway Scope, and disposable Macintosh laryngoscope blade. Middle East J Anaesthesiol. 2011; 21(1): 129–134.
  27. Vijayakumar V, Rao S, Shetty N. A Comparison of Macintosh and Airtraq Laryngoscopes for Endotracheal Intubation in Adult Patients With Cervical Spine Immobilization Using Manual In Line Axial Stabilization: A Prospective Randomized Study. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2016; 28(4): 296–302.
  28. Zhao H, Feng Yi, Zhou Y. Teaching tracheal intubation: Airtraq is superior to Macintosh laryngoscope. BMC Med Educ. 2014; 14: 144.
  29. Yuk M, Yeo W, Lee K, et al. Cervical collar makes difficult airway: a simulation study using the LEMON criteria. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2018; 5(1): 22–28.
  30. Smereka J, Ladny JR, Naylor A, et al. C-MAC compared with direct laryngoscopy for intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: A manikin trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2017; 35(8): 1142–1146.
  31. Gawlowski P, Smereka J, Madziala M, et al. Comparison of the ETView Single Lumen and Macintosh laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation in an airway manikin with immobilized cervical spine by novice paramedics: A randomized crossover manikin trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017; 96(16): e5873.
  32. Karczewska K, Szarpak L, Smereka J, et al. ET-View compared to direct laryngoscopy in patients with immobilized cervical spine by unexperienced physicians: A randomized crossover manikin trial. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2017; 49(4): 274–282.
  33. Evrin T, Smereka J, Gorczyca D, et al. Comparison of blind intubation via supraglottic airway devices versus standard intubation during different airway emergency scenarios in inexperienced hand: Randomized, crossover manikin trial. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018; 97(40): e12593.
  34. Kurahashi N, Komasawa N, Watanabe N, et al. Successful tracheal intubation with the McGRATH™ MAC during chest compression in a difficult airway patient. J Clin Anesth. 2017; 39: 15–16.
  35. Higgs A, McGrath BA, Goddard C, et al. Difficult Airway Society. DAS guidelines on the airway management of critically ill patients. Anaesthesia. 2018; 73(8): 1035–1036.
  36. Ezri T, Szmuk P, Warters RD, et al. Difficult airway management practice patterns among anesthesiologists practicing in the United States: have we made any progress? J Clin Anesth. 2003; 15(6): 418–422.
  37. Wozniak M, Arnell K, Brown M, et al. The 30-second rule: the effects of prolonged intubation attempts on oxygen saturation and heart rate in preterm infants in the delivery room. Minerva Pediatr. 2018; 70(2): 127–132.

Regulations

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., ul. Świętokrzyska 73, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland
tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, fax:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl