Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Airway management

Difficult airway management practice changes after introduction of the GlideScope videolaryngoscope

A retrospective cohort study

Avidan, Alexander; Shapira, Yoel; Cohen, Avital; Weissman, Charles; Levin, Phillip D.

Author Information
European Journal of Anaesthesiology: June 2020 - Volume 37 - Issue 6 - p 443-450
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001199
  • Free

Abstract

Introduction

Videolaryngoscopy is increasingly used for difficult airway management in anaesthesia,1–3 intensive care units4 and emergency departments.5 Recently, videolaryngoscopy has been incorporated into various difficult airway management algorithms,6,7 being recommended as one of the initial steps in the management of difficult airways. Videolaryngoscopes have reduced the incidence of emergency surgical airway management in the peri-operative setting.8 Until the introduction of videolaryngoscopy, intubation using flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy was regarded as the gold standard of difficult airway management in anaesthesia.9–11 Studies have shown that videolaryngoscopy can replace flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy for difficult airway management12,13 but the indications and pattern of using videolaryngoscopy in daily practice are currently unknown.14

The goal of this retrospective cohort study was to ascertain whether the introduction of the GlideScope AVL (Verathon Inc., Seattle, Washington, USA) in a tertiary academic referral centre led to changes in the frequency of use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy or other methods of difficult airway management in adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia with tracheal intubation with expected or unexpected difficult intubation, a history of difficult intubation or with cervical disorder or limited mouth opening. Additionally, we investigated whether there was a change in frequency of cases with impossible intubation after the introduction of the GlideScope.

The Glidescope is a videolaryngoscope including a light source and video camera at the distal end of a laryngoscope blade transmitting a real-time picture to a separate screen. Similar types of videolaryngoscopes are available from several other manufacturers.

We hypothesised that the introduction of videolaryngoscopy reduced the use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy and other methods of airway management and that cases of impossible tracheal intubation were markedly reduced.

Methods

Ethical approvals for this study with waiver for informed consent was provided by the Institutional Review Board of the Hadassah Medical Organisation, POB 12000, Jerusalem, 91120, Israel (Ref: HMO-13–0007, approval date 4 March 2013 and HMO-11–0316, approval date 30 November 2015, Chairperson Professor T. Chajek).

Initially, data on all techniques of tracheal intubation in adults (≥18 years of age) were retrieved from the anaesthesia information management system (Metavision, iMDsoft, Tel Aviv, Israel) for equal periods prior to introduction of the GlideScope (from 19 July 2009 until 27 April 2011) and thereafter (28 April 2011 to 3 February 2013, start of retrospective data collection). Each period was 647 days long. Patients having tracheal intubation performed with a nondirect laryngoscopic technique (see below) and patients with failed tracheal intubation were then identified in order to calculate the frequencies of each of these techniques as a proportion of all patients undergoing tracheal intubation.

The following data were retrieved from the anaesthesia information management system: age, sex, ASA physical status classification system, weight, intubation technique and whether tracheal intubation failed. For patients intubated employing a nondirect laryngoscopy technique, data on whether intubation was expected to be easy or difficult or unexpectedly difficult were retrieved.

From the Hadassah hospital information system, the following information was gathered: expected or known history of difficult intubation, past or current history of cervical disorder (such as cervical injuries, previous cervical surgery or other diseases), or limited mouth opening.

Finally, quarterly data on techniques used for all tracheal intubations during a 10-year period (from February 2007 to February 2017, 4 years before and 6 years after the introduction of the GlideScope) were retrieved from the anaesthesia information management system in order to analyse temporal changes.

Intubation techniques used for difficult airway management were divided into three groups: GlideScope, flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy or other difficult airway management devices [including Truview evo2 laryngoscope blade (Truphatek, Israel), Airtraq (Prodol Meditec, Spain), LMA Fastrach Re-usable (Teleflex Incorporated, Ireland) (with subsequent blind intubation or with use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy)].

Statistical analysis

The proportion of nondirect laryngoscopy intubations during the periods before and after the introduction of the GlideScope were compared. Among nondirect laryngoscopy techniques, patient characteristics were compared for the periods before and after the introduction of the GlideScope. Differences were sought between the two periods in the proportion of cases employing flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy, both for awake and anaesthetised patients. Similarly, the use of difficult airway management techniques other than flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy was compared. Quarterly use of the various techniques was analysed over a 10-year period.

Proportions were compared using Fisher's exact or Pearson's χ2-square test, as appropriate. Means were compared with paired t-tests. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Regression analyses evaluated changes in mean quarterly use over the 10-year period of each of the techniques for difficult intubation before and after the introduction of the GlideScope. Statistical analyses were performed with SAS Version 9.2 (SAS Institute, Cary, North Carolina, USA), WinPepi Version 11.6515 and Microsoft Excel 365 (Microsoft, Redmond, USA).

Results

During the period before the introduction of the GlideScope 8306, patients underwent tracheal intubation, compared with 8517 during the period after the GlideScope introduction. Patients’ characteristics were very similar in both periods (Table 1). During the period before the introduction of the GlideScope, a difficult airway management technique was used for 235/8306 (2.8%) patients versus 480/8517 (5.6%) patients after its introduction (P < 0.0001). There were no differences in the percentage of patients in whom a difficult airway management method was used for expected or unexpected difficult intubation, for patients with limited mouth opening or for patients who had a previous history of difficult intubation (Table 2). After introduction of the GlideScope, a higher proportion of patients with cervical disorder and unknown or other indications (such as obstruction or deviation of the glottic or subglottic area because of a tumour or other disease) underwent intubation with a nondirect laryngoscopic technique than before the introduction of the GlideScope. There was no difference in the proportion of intubations performed with flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy for cervical disorders and unknown/other reason between the two periods [cervical disorder: before GlideScope: 16/8306 (0.19%), after GlideScope: 12/8517 (0.14%), P = 0.410; unknown/other reasons: before GlideScope: 27/8306 (0.33%), after GlideScope 29/8517 (0.34%), P = 0.862]. The changes in use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy, GlideScope and other devices for the different indications before and after the introduction of the GlideScope are summarised in Table 2.

Table 1
Table 1:
Summary of patient characteristics
Table 2
Table 2:
Changes of indications for use of techniques for difficult intubation before and after introduction of the GlideScope

The overall use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy decreased by 44.4% after the introduction of the GlideScope [before GlideScope 149/8306 (1.8%); after GlideScope 85/8517 (1.0%), P < 0.0001) (Table 3)]. This reduction was found for both awake patients and patients under general anaesthesia [awake: before GlideScope 110/8306 (1.3%); after GlideScope 62/8517 (0.7%), a 43.8% reduction, P < 0.001; under general anaesthesia: before GlideScope 39/8306 (0.47%); after GlideScope 27/8517 (0.27%), a 42.6% reduction, P = 0.006). There was also a significant decrease in use of other nondirect laryngoscopy intubation equipment after the introduction of the GlideScope [before GlideScope 84/8306 (1.0%); after GlideScope 22/8517 (0.26%), a 70% decrease, P < 0.0001]. There was no difference in the number of impossible tracheal intubations between the two periods (before GlideScope 2/8306 (0.02%), after GlideScope 2/8517 (0.02%), P = 0.98).

Table 3
Table 3:
Comparison of the use of fibreoptic bronchoscopy and other devices for difficult intubation before and after introduction of the Glidescope

After introducing the GlideScope, the use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy in awake patients decreased significantly among patients with expected and unexpected difficult intubation and among patients with a history of difficult intubation (Table 3). The use of awake flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy remained stable for patients with limited mouth opening, cervical disorder or with other and unknown reasons (Table 3). Use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy under general anaesthesia was significantly reduced in patients with unexpected difficult intubation, but not in patients with expected difficult intubation, limited mouth opening and other and unknown reasons (Table 3).

After the GlideScope was introduced, the use of other difficult airway management techniques was significantly reduced in patients with expected or unexpected difficult intubation and unknown or other reasons (Table 3).

The quarterly use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy and other techniques for tracheal intubation during a 10-year period is shown in Fig. 1 (including 4 years before and 6 years after the introduction of the GlideScope). The percentage of patients intubated with flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy per quarter was higher before the introduction of the GlideScope than after its introduction [before: 1.9 ± 0.5 (95% CI, 1.7 to 2.1) patients per quarter versus after 1.0 ± 0.3 (95%, CI 0.8 to 1.1) (P < 0.0001)]. However, the absolute number of quarterly uses of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy was stable during each period (before P = 0.1646, after P = 0.3019); this was true also for awake patients (before P = 0.2132, after P = 0.9878) and patients under general anaesthesia (before P = 0.2985, after P = 0.1709). Quarterly proportional use of other devices increased over time before the introduction of the GlideScope (P < 0.0001) but there was no change (P = 0.2704) in the quarterly proportional use after its introduction. There was a steady and significant increase in quarterly use of the GlideScope over time in the 6 years after its introduction (P < 0.0001). The use of the GlideScope was disproportionately higher than the reduction in use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy and other devices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 1:
Quarterly use of devices for difficult intubation (February 2007 to February 2017) (total n=48 346). Quarterly proportional use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy and other techniques for tracheal intubation during a 10-year period. Although the percentage of patients intubated with flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy per quarter was higher before than after the introduction of the GlideScope, the percentage of quarterly uses of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy was stable during each period. The number of intubations performed with the GlideScope was disproportionately higher than the reduction in use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy and other techniques for difficult intubation, and increased over time.

Discussion

The results of this study supported our hypothesis that introducing videolaryngoscopy into the operating rooms of a tertiary care university hospital was associated with a 44% reduction in the use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy and a 70% decrease in the use of other difficult airway management techniques. The diminished use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy was especially marked in cases of unexpected difficult intubation and those with a history of difficult intubation. However, there was almost no change in the use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy in cases of limited mouth opening and other or unknown reasons. This latter group of patients explained the reduced, but stable, quarterly use of fibreoptic intubations after the introduction of videolaryngoscopy (Fig. 1).

Notably, this study demonstrated that videolaryngoscopy use was disproportionately greater than the prior use of fibreoptic bronchoscopy and all other difficult airway techniques (Fig. 1). This might be because of cases in which the GlideScope was used for resident teaching and these cases can be attributed to situations where the indication for its use could not be determined (64% of all GlideScope uses). An alternate explanation is that this liberal use of videolaryngoscopy might be as it provided a feeling of security to anaesthesiologists managing suspected or anticipated difficult intubations,3 without having a real impact on outcome (the number of impossible intubations was equally low in both groups). Moreover, we assume that it is more comfortable for a patient with suspected difficult intubation to be intubated with a videolaryngoscope while under general anaesthesia than awake with flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy.

Although there was a 26% reduction in the use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy for patients with cervical disorders, the proportion of patients with reported cervical disorders was higher in the period before than after the introduction of the GlideScope. In more than two-thirds of the patients with cervical disorder in the period after the introduction of the GlideScope, videolaryngoscopy was used for tracheal intubation. However, there was no difference in the proportion of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy use among the patients before and after the introduction of GlideScope. This is probably attributable to the use of direct laryngoscopy with axial traction and manual inline stabilisation among patients prior to the introduction of the GlideScope with only suspected or minor cervical disorders.16 The number of such patients could not be identified as such cases were reported in the anaesthesia information management system as ‘direct laryngoscopy’ without any notation of cervical disorder or axial traction and inline stabilisation.

Liberal use of a videolaryngoscope with single-use disposable blades results in higher costs. The single-use metal Macintosh blade used in our department costs approximately €3.00 and the GlideScope single-use blade about €24.50. On the basis of the data from the anaesthesia information management system for 2017, this increased costs by about €8200/year (the GlideScope was used for 8% of tracheal intubations). In contrast, the annual costs of using reusable flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopes (including purchase, repairs and handling/cleaning per case) are high and estimated at €18200.17 The approximately 50% reduction in flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy observed in our study would lead to a yearly saving of about €9100.

Although it is questioned whether flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy is still considered the gold standard for managing difficult intubation,18 Popat and Woodall19 showed that awake fibreoptic intubation is underutilised and that the threshold for using this technique should be lowered. As this study showed, videolaryngoscopy replaced fibreoptic intubation in cases of expected and unexpected difficult intubation, but in patients with limited mouth opening, fibreoptic intubation was still the first choice. Law et al.20 reviewed 12 years of practice and showed no reduction in the incidence of awake fibreoptic intubations despite the introduction of videolaryngoscopes. Unfortunately, they did not study the indications for the use of awake intubation. Wanderer et al.21 found similar results (decreased fibreoptic intubations, a disproportionate increase in the use of videolaryngoscopy) but did neither report the reasons why videolaryngoscopy replaced fibreoptic intubation nor the indications for the continued use of fibreoptic intubation.

Our study showed that in cases of limited mouth opening and cervical spine injuries, awake fibreoptic intubation can still be regarded as the gold standard, as emphasised by Benumof.22 In contrast, Lee et al.23 reported that the Trachway video stilette (Biotronic Instrument Enterprise Ltd., Tai-Chung, Taiwan), which more resembles a rigid fibreoptic bronchoscope than a classical videolaryngoscope, could replace fibreoptic intubation in cases of awake intubation in patients with limited mouth opening.

Trainees should acquire sufficient experience to ensure proficiency in the various difficult airway management techniques. Learning to use the flexible fibreoptic bronchoscope for intubation is a cornerstone of resident training in anaesthesia.24 However, teaching difficult airway management raises challenging ethical issues.25 The patient's right to receive the best treatment available and the right of informed consent must be weighed against the need to train residents and having attending anaesthesiologists maintain high levels of professional skill. The replacement of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy by videolaryngoscopy in half of the cases with expected or unexpected difficult intubation substantially reduces the training opportunities for residents.26 Although there is a high success rate in awake fibreoptic intubation during the first experience of supervised trainees,27 many attempts in a simulator are necessary to gain proficiency in fibreoptic intubation.28 Fibreoptic intubation simulators are available and recommended for training,29–32 but transfer of skills acquired with such simulators into clinical practice is questioned.33

The strength of this study is that it used a large database to examine the effects of adding videolaryngoscopy to the anaesthesia activities of a large tertiary care medical centre. It clearly demonstrates that, unlike other difficult intubation methods, this technology had major effects on daily practice. However, the study, being retrospective, was not designed to examine outcomes (reduced morbidity and mortality) or cost-effectiveness.

Both before and after the introduction of the GlideScope, there were only two cases of impossible intubation. It seems that even with the addition of videolaryngoscopy to the difficult intubation armamentarium, there are situations in which tracheal intubation was still impossible. However, in the anaesthesia information management system, only the final airway management technique was noted so that it likely that there were more patients with failed tracheal intubation who were ventilated with a laryngeal mask airway as a rescue technique. In such cases, the laryngeal mask airway would have been marked in the anaesthesia information management system as the airway management technique, and thus not included in the number of cases of impossible tracheal intubation. However, in our experience, the number of such cases is very low. Additionally, we do not know in how many cases flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy was used after failed intubation with the GlideScope or vice versa.

Another limitation of this study is that it is retrospective, so that the choice of a specific technique for difficult intubation could not always be established because of missing or difficult-to-interpret data. A patient may have been assessed preoperatively as a potential difficult intubation, but the anaesthesiologists performing the intubation may have estimated the patient as being an easy intubation or vice versa. Another limitation is that this was a single-centre study and it is possible that in hospitals with different case mixes and departmental approaches or policies for managing difficult airway situations, the selection of equipment and the introduction of videolaryngoscopy may have a greater or lesser influence on the use of other intubation techniques.

Conclusion

The introduction of the GlideScope videolaryngoscope for difficult airway management led to a substantial change in difficult airway management, occasioned by a marked reduction in the use of flexible fibreoptic bronchoscopy and almost complete elimination of other difficult airway management techniques.

The widespread use of videolaryngoscopy for airway management has brought up the question of whether it will become the new standard for tracheal intubation, replacing conventional direct laryngoscopy. Therefore, there is a need for prospective studies on the indications, outcomes, safety and cost-effectiveness of videolaryngoscopy to determine whether videolaryngoscopy is a revolutionary, disruptive technology that will eventually replace traditional laryngoscopy or rather an evolutionary development used for difficult airways or suspected difficult airways only.

Acknowledgements relating to this article

Assistance with the study: none.

Financial support and sponsorship: none.

Conflicts of interest: none.

Presentation: preliminary data for this study were presented as a poster presentation at the 23rd International Congress of the Israel Society of Anesthesiologists and Critical Care, Tel-Aviv (Israel), 16 to 18 September 2014.

References

1. Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R, et al. Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology 2012; 116:629–636.
2. Aziz MF, Healy D, Kheterpal S, et al. Routine clinical practice effectiveness of the Glidescope in difficult airway management: an analysis of 2,004 Glidescope intubations, complications, and failures from two institutions. Anesthesiology 2011; 114:34–41.
3. Wong DT, Mehta A, Tam AD, et al. A survey of Canadian anesthesiologists’ preferences in difficult intubation and ‘cannot intubate, cannot ventilate’ situations. Can J Anaesth 2014; 61:717–726.
4. Kory P, Guevarra K, Mathew JP, et al. The impact of video laryngoscopy use during urgent endotracheal intubation in the critically ill. Anesth Analg 2013; 117:144–149.
5. Sakles JC, Mosier J, Chiu S, et al. A comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2012; 60:739–748.
6. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth 2015; 115:827–848.
7. Mushambi MC, Kinsella SM, Popat M, et al. Obstetric Anaesthetists’ Association and Difficult Airway Society guidelines for the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 2015; 70:1286–1306.
8. Fei M, Wanderer JP, Jiang Y, et al. Association between the availability of videolaryngoscopes and the incidence of emergency surgical airway in the perioperative setting of a large academic medical centre: a retrospective observational study. Br J Anaesth 2016; 117:824–826.
9. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2003; 98:1269–1277.
10. Henderson JJ, Popat MT, Latto IP, et al. Difficult Airway Society. Difficult Airway Society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia 2004; 59:675–694.
11. Paolini JB, Donati F, Drolet P. Review article: video-laryngoscopy: another tool for difficult intubation or a new paradigm in airway management? Can J Anaesth 2013; 60:184–191.
12. Jepsen CH, Gatke MR, Thogersen B, et al. Tracheal intubation with a flexible fibreoptic scope or the McGrath videolaryngoscope in simulated difficult airway scenarios: a randomised controlled manikin study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014; 31:131–136.
13. Rosenstock CV, Thogersen B, Afshari A, et al. Awake fiberoptic or awake video laryngoscopic tracheal intubation in patients with anticipated difficult airway management: a randomized clinical trial. Anesthesiology 2012; 116:1210–1216.
14. Zaouter C, Calderon J, Hemmerling TM. Videolaryngoscopy as a new standard of care. Br J Anaesth 2015; 114:181–183.
15. Abramson JH. WINPEPI (PEPI-for-Windows): computer programs for epidemiologists. Epidemiol Perspect Innov 2004; 1:6.
16. Nunnally ME, Hernandez MR. The difficult airway: an atlas of tools and techniques for clinical management. 2018; New York: Springer Science+Businness Media, 54-59.
17. Gupta D, Wang H. Cost-effectiveness analysis of flexible optical scopes for tracheal intubation: a descriptive comparative study of reusable and single-use scopes. J Clin Anesth 2011; 23:632–635.
18. Ahmad I, Bailey CR. Time to abandon awake fibreoptic intubation? Anaesthesia 2016; 71:12–16.
19. Popat M, Woodall N. Tim Cook, Woodall N, Frek C. Fibreoptic intubation: uses and omissions. Major complications of airway management in the United Kingdom. Report findings March 20114th National Audit Project of The Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. London, UK: 2011; 114–120.
20. Law JA, Morris IR, Brousseau PA, et al. The incidence, success rate, and complications of awake tracheal intubation in 1,554 patients over 12 years: an historical cohort study. Can J Anaesth 2015; 62:736–744.
21. Wanderer JP, Ehrenfeld JM, Sandberg WS, et al. The changing scope of difficult airway management. Can J Anaesth 2013; 60:1022–1024.
22. Benumof JL. Awake intubations are alive and well. Can J Anaesth 2015; 62:723–726.
23. Lee MC, Tseng KY, Shen YC, et al. Nasotracheal intubation in patients with limited mouth opening: a comparison between fibreoptic intubation and the Trachway(R). Anaesthesia 2016; 71:31–38.
24. McNarry AF, Dovell T, Dancey FM, et al. Perception of training needs and opportunities in advanced airway skills: a survey of British and Irish trainees. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2007; 24:498–504.
25. McCarthy S, Cooper RM. A primer on the ethics of teaching and learning in airway management. Anaesthesia 2018; 73:940–945.
26. Ince M, Jackson M, Plummer N, et al. Awake fibreoptic intubation, videolaryngoscopy and training. Anaesthesia 2016; 71:1369.
27. El-Boghdadly K, Onwochei DN, Cuddihy J, et al. A prospective cohort study of awake fibreoptic intubation practice at a tertiary centre. Anaesthesia 2017; 72:694–703.
28. Dalal PG, Dalal GB, Pott L, et al. Learning curves of novice anesthesiology residents performing simulated fibreoptic upper airway endoscopy. Can J Anaesth 2011; 58:802–809.
29. Boet S, Bould MD, Schaeffer R, et al. Learning fibreoptic intubation with a virtual computer program transfers to ‘hands on’ improvement. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:31–35.
30. Vaidyanath C, Sharma M, Mendonca C. Fibreoptic airway endoscopy training: comparison of three different trainer models. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2015; 32:510–512.
31. Graeser K, Konge L, Kristensen MS, et al. Airway management in a bronchoscopic simulator based setting: an observational study. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2014; 31:125–130.
32. Wong DT, Mehta A, Singh KP, et al. The effect of virtual reality bronchoscopy simulator training on performance of bronchoscopic-guided intubation in patients: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2019; 36:227–233.
33. Crabtree NA, Chandra DB, Weiss ID, et al. Fibreoptic airway training: correlation of simulator performance and clinical skill. Can J Anaesth 2008; 55:100–104.
Copyright © 2020 European Society of Anaesthesiology. All rights reserved.