↓ Skip to main content

Endotracheal intubation using the C-MAC® video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope: A prospective, comparative study in the ICU

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, June 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
99 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Endotracheal intubation using the C-MAC® video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope: A prospective, comparative study in the ICU
Published in
Critical Care, June 2012
DOI 10.1186/cc11384
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ruediger R Noppens, Stephanie Geimer, Nicole Eisel, Matthias David, Tim Piepho

Abstract

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION: Endotracheal intubation in the ICU is a challenging procedure and is frequently associated with life-threatening complications. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the C-MAC® video laryngoscope on laryngeal view and intubation success compared with direct laryngoscopy. METHODS: In a single-center, prospective, comparative before-after study in an anesthetist-lead surgical ICU of a tertiary university hospital, predictors of potentially difficult tracheal intubation, number of intubation attempts, success rate and glottic view were evaluated during a 2-year study period (first year, Macintosh laryngoscopy (ML); second year, C-MAC®). RESULTS: A total of 274 critically ill patients requiring endotracheal intubation were included; 113 intubations using ML and 117 intubations using the C-MAC® were assessed. In patients with at least one predictor for difficult intubation, the C-MAC® resulted in more successful intubations on first attempt compared with ML (34/43, 79% vs. 21/38, 55%; P = 0.03). The visualization of the glottis with ML using Cormack and Lehane (C&L) grading was more frequently rated as difficult (20%, C&L grade 3 and 4) compared with the C-MAC® (7%, C&L grade 3 and 4) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Use of the C-MAC® video laryngoscope improved laryngeal imaging and improved the intubating success rate on the first attempt in patients with predictors for difficult intubation in the ICU setting. Video laryngoscopy seems to be a useful tool in the ICU where potentially difficult endotracheal intubations regularly occur.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 2 3%
South Africa 2 3%
France 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Unknown 64 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 20%
Lecturer 9 13%
Other 8 11%
Student > Postgraduate 7 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 6%
Other 15 21%
Unknown 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 69%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Mathematics 1 1%
Unspecified 1 1%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 1%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 16 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 December 2017.
All research outputs
#6,853,390
of 22,668,244 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#3,733
of 6,030 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,559
of 167,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#14
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,668,244 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,030 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.0. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 167,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.