Background Endotracheal intubation continues to be the gold standard for securing the airway in emergency situations. Difficult intubation is still a dreadful situation when securing the airway. Objective To compare VieScope with Glidescope and conventional Macintosh laryngoscopy (MAC) in a simulated difficult airway situation. Methods In this randomized controlled simulation trial, 35 anesthesiologists performed endotracheal intubation using VieScope, GlideScope and MAC in a randomized order on a certified airway manikin with difficult airway. Results For the primary endpoint of correct tube position, no statistical difference was found (p = 0.137). Time until intubation for GlideScope (27.5 ± 20.3 s) and MAC (20.8 ± 8.1 s) were shorter compared to the VieScope (36.3 ± 10.1 s). Time to first ventilation, GlideScope (39.3 ± 21.6 s) and MAC (31.9 ± 9.5 s) were also shorter compared to the VieScope (46.5 ± 12.4 s). There was no difference shown between handling time for VieScope (20.7 ± 7.0 s) and time until intubation with GlideScope or MAC. Participants stated a better Cormack & Lehane Score with VieScope, compared to direct laryngoscopy. Conclusion Rate of correct tracheal tube position was comparable between the three devices. Time to intubation and ventilation were shorter with MAC and Glidescope compared to VieScope. It did however show a comparable handling time to video laryngoscopy and MAC. It also did show a better visualization of the airway in the Cormack & Lehane Score compared to MAC. Trial registration The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Identifier: DRKS00024968) on March 31st 2021.

In this model of massive gastric aspiration, we compared two different laryngoscopes (VieScope and Macintosh) in a randomized, controlled simulation study. The primary endpoint was time to intubation; the secondary endpoints were intubation success (i.e., tracheal tube position) and amount of pulmonary aspiration. Thirty-four anesthetists performed endotracheal intubation using VieScope and Macintosh laryngoscopy in a randomized order on an airway manikin simulating massive regurgitation of gastric fluid. The primary endpoint “time until intubation” could be achieved significantly faster (mean −12.4 s [95% confidence intervals (CI) −19.7 s; −7.3 s]) with Macintosh compared to VieScope (p < 0.001). Concerning “correct tube position”, no statistical difference was found between the devices (p = 1.0). The mean time to first ventilation was −11.1 s [95% CI −18.3 s; −5.3 s] when using Macintosh (p = 0.001). The mean volume of aspirated gastric fluid was lower in the Macintosh group: −90.0 mL [95% CI −235.0 mL; −27.5 mL] (p = 0.011). Data from this simulation study suggest that in a model of massive gastric regurgitation, airway management can be achieved faster and with less gastric aspiration when using a Macintosh laryngoscope compared to a VieScope laryngoscope.

Background VieScope is a new type of laryngoscope, with a straight, transparent and illuminated blade, allowing for direct line of sight towards the larynx. In addition, VieScope is disposed of after single patient use, which can avoid cross-contaminations of contagious material. This has gained importance especially when treating patients with highly contagious infectious diseases, such as during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. In this context, VieScope has not been evaluated yet in a clinical study. Material and methods This study compared intubation with VieScope to video-laryngoscopy (GlideScope) in normal and difficult airway in a standardized airway manikin in a randomized controlled simulation trial. Thirty-five medical specialists were asked to perform endotracheal intubation in full personal protective equipment (PPE). Primary endpoint was correct tube position. First-pass rate (i.e., success rate at the first attempt), time until intubation and time until first correct ventilation were registered as secondary endpoints. Results For correct tracheal tube placement, there was no significant difference between VieScope and GlideScope in normal and difficult airway conditions. VieScope had over 91% fist-pass success rate in normal airway setting. VieScope had a comparable success rate to GlideScope in difficult airway, but had a significantly longer time until intubation and time until ventilation. Conclusion VieScope and GlideScope had high success rates in normal as well as in difficult airway. There was no unrecognized esophageal intubation in either group. Overall time for intubation was longer in the VieScope group, though in an acceptable range given in literature. Results from this simulation study suggest that VieScope may be an acceptable alternative for tracheal intubation in full PPE. Trial Registration The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Registration date: 09/11/2020; TrialID: DRKS00023406).