Comparison of KingVision videolaryngoscope channelled blade with Tuoren videolaryngoscope non-channelled blade in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by non-anaesthesiologists and experienced anaesthesiologists: A prospective randomised crossover mannequin study

Abstract

\n Purpose\n A videolaryngoscope has been recommended for intubation in the COVID-19 scenario but the videolaryngoscope providing optimal intubation conditions is not ascertained. We compared KingVision channelled blade with a non-Channelled videolaryngoscope for intubation times in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by both anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologists.\n \n Methods\n This prospective randomised cross over mannequin study was conducted in a skill training lab. 25 anaesthesiologists and 25 non-anaesthesiologists donned in standard personal protective equipment performed 100 intubations with KingVision and Tuoren videolaryngoscopes in a mannequin covered with a transparent plastic sheet. The total intubation time, percentage of glottic opening scores, first attempt success rates were assessed.\n \n Results\n The mean difference in intubation times in anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologist less with KingVision videolaryngoscope (21.1s; 95% CI 9.6 to 32.6s vs. 35.9s; 95% CI 24.4 to 47.4 s; P=0.001). Percentage of glottic opening score was significantly better with KingVision by non-anaesthesiologists (60; IQR 42.5 to 75 vs. 70; IQR 50 to 100; P=0.019). KingVision provided superior first attempt success rate in non-anaesthesiologists (84% vs. 61.9%; P=0.02) and anaesthesiologists (96% vs. 76%; P=0.12).\n \n Conclusion\n KingVision channelled videolaryngoscope provided faster intubation times, glottic views and first attempt success rates in a simulated COVID-19 scenario in manikins and might be preferred over videolaryngoscopes with non-channelled blade. The findings need to be further verified in humans.\n