Comparison of C-MAC and McGrathMAC Videolaryngoscopes for Intubation in Patients with Normal Airway by Donned Anaesthesiologists Using an Intubation Box During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Prospective, Randomized Study.

OBJECTIVE

Intubation is a highly aerosol-generating procedure. Recent airway management guidelines advocate the use of appropriate personal protective equipment, videolaryngoscope, and "intubation box" while intubating a suspected or infected coronavirus patient. We undertook a study to compare C-MAC videolaryngoscope with McGrath videolaryngoscope for tracheal intubation using an intubation box by donned anaesthesiologists.

METHODS

The patients were randomly allocated to 2 groups by computer-generated random numbers, depending upon the videolaryngoscope used. In group C, C-MAC videolaryngoscope (n=30) was used, whereas McGrath videolaryngoscope was used in group M (n=30). The primary outcome was the total time required for successful intubation. The secondary outcomes included the number of attempts required, Cormack and Lehane grade, the percentage of glottis opening score, the difficulty faced while using the device, and the user's preference.

RESULTS

The time to intubation was 57.17 ± 19.98 seconds with C-MAC videolaryngoscope as compared to 57.93 ± 14.92 seconds with McGrath. Both the devices had a good percentage of glottis opening score. Twelve patients in each group were found to have a Cormack and Lehane grade of 1. The time to glottis visualization was more with McGrath than with C-MAC although not significant (23.8 ± 14.03 vs 20.10 ± 10.78 seconds). Both the devices were easy to use.

CONCLUSIONS

Both C-MAC and McGrath videolaryngoscopes are equally effective devices for intubation by a donned anaesthesiologist using an intubation box. McGrath with a disposable blade should be preferred for intubation in these conditions.