Results
The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar in both groups, as shown in Table 1. The median time taken to perform successful intubation was significantly longer in the McGrath group when compared with the C-MAC group (median 67 vs 50 s; Fig. 1). Although the McGrath videolaryngoscope provided more grade 1 laryngoscopic views than the C-MAC videolaryngoscope, it significantly required more than one attempt in order to achieve successful intubation (Table 2).
(Enlarge Image)
Figure 1.
Comparison of time to intubation (s) between the McGrath group and the C-MAC group. Values are in median, inter-quartile range, maximum and minimum. *Statistically significant, P<0.001.
Using the McGrath videolaryngoscope resulted in five failed intubations, whereas the C-MAC videolaryngoscope resulted in one failed intubation. This difference was not statistically significant (Table 2). The C-MAC videolaryngoscope was consistently rated by anaesthetists as an easier device to use when compared with the McGrath videolaryngoscope, and this difference on the NRS was statistically significant (median 6 vs 9; Table 2). There were in total seven minor oropharyngeal mucosal injuries as a result of the intubation, six from using the McGrath videolaryngoscope and one from the C-MAC videolaryngoscope. None of the patients required further management.
In both groups, patients showed significant changes in heart rate and arterial pressure from baseline to post-intubation. However, there was no statistical significant difference in the changes between the two groups (Table 2).