Evaluation of the Storz CMAC®, Glidescope® GVL, AirTraq®, King LTS-D™, and direct laryngoscopy in a simulated difficult airway

Jessie G. Nelson, Sandi S. Wewerka, Casey M. Woster, Aaron M. Burnett, Joshua G. Salzman, Ralph Frascone

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

7 Scopus citations


Objective: The aim of this study was to compare first-attempt and overall success rates and success rates in relation to placement time among 5 different airway management devices: Storz CMAC, Glidescope GVL, AirTraq, King LTS-D, and direct laryngoscopy (DL). Methods: Emergency medical technician basic (EMT-B), EMT-paramedics (EMT-P), and emergency medicine residents and staff physicians placed each of the 5 devices in a random order into an AirSim (TruCorp, Belfast, UK) part-task training manikin. The difficult airway scenario was created by fixing the manikin head to a stationary object and introducing simulated emesis into the hypopharynx. First-attempt and overall success and success in relation to placement time were compared. Provider feedback about device performance was also evaluated. Results: Ninety-four providers (16 EMT-basics, 54 EMT-paramedics, and 24 emergency department doctors of medicine) consented to participation. First-attempt and overall success rates for DL, King LTS-D, GVL, and CMAC were not statistically different. Compared with DL, the AirTraq was 96% less likely to be placed successfully (odds ratio, 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-0.14). When time was factored into the model, the odds of successful placement of the King LTS-D were higher compared with DL (hazard ratio [HR], 1.80; 95% CI, 1.34-2.42) and lower for GVL (HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80) and AirTraq (HR, 0.228; 95% CI, 0.16-0.325). Providers ranked the CMAC first in terms of performance and preference for use in their practice setting. Conclusion: Overall success rates for DL, King-LTS-D, and both video laryngoscope systems were not different. When time was factored into the model, the King LTS-D was more likely to be placed successfully.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)589-592
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Emergency Medicine
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2013
Externally publishedYes

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Funding for this study was provided by an internal grant from the HealthPartners Research Foundation (Minneapolis, MN) . Storz CMAC, Glidescope GVL, and AirTraq devices were provided at no cost for use during the simulation scenarios.

Copyright 2013 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.


Dive into the research topics of 'Evaluation of the Storz CMAC®, Glidescope® GVL, AirTraq®, King LTS-D™, and direct laryngoscopy in a simulated difficult airway'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this