Similar Intubation Success with GlideScope and C-MAC Video Laryngoscopes

Neither device proved superior for first-attempt or overall success.

Several studies have suggested that video laryngoscopy is superior to direct laryngoscopy for emergency intubation (JW Emerg Med Jan 20 2012 and JW Emerg Med Dec 7 2012), but is one video laryngoscope superior to another? Glottic views are excellent with the GlideScope because of the substantial anterior angulation of the blade, but some reports have suggested that tube passage can sometimes be challenging because of this design feature (J Emerg Med 2010; 39:86).

Investigators at a single academic emergency department retrospectively analyzed emergency intubation data to compare success rates for intubations performed with the GlideScope versus the C-MAC video laryngoscope during a 3-year period.

For 230 GlideScope intubations and 233 C-MAC i…

Reviewing Author

Daniel J. Pallin, MD, MPH

Disclosures

Consultant/Advisory BoardPortola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Speaker’s BureauPeerView Institute for Medical Education

Grant/Research SupportAgency for Healthcare Research and Quality; CDC; NIH–National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences; NIH–National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID); NIH–NIAID–Antibacterial Resistance Leadership Group; Merck; Pfizer; Boehringer-Ingelheim; Shire; Portola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Novartis; bioMérieux; Siemens; Rapid Pathogen Screening; Magnolia; Stago; Innovative Biosensors; Molecular Detection, Inc.; Dyax Corp.; Trius Pharmaceuticals

Daniel J. Pallin, MD, MPH

Disclosures

Consultant/Advisory BoardPortola Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Speaker’s BureauPeerView Institute for Medical Education