Comparison of Haemodynamic Response to Intubation with KingVision and C-MAC® Videolaryngoscope in Adults

  • Prathima Padavarahalli Thammanna Department of Anaesthesiology, MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore-560054, India.
  • Kavya Marasandra Seetharam Mail Department of Anaesthesiology, MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore-560054, India.
  • Tejesh Channasandra Anandaswamy Department of Anaesthesiology, MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore-560054, India.
  • Prapti Rath Department of Anaesthesiology, MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore-560054, India.
  • Geetha Chamanhalli Rajappa Department of Anaesthesiology, MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore-560054, India.
  • Jancy Joseph Department of Anaesthesiology, MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore-560054, India.
KingVision, C-MAC, Videolaryngosocpe, Haemodynamic response


Background: Videolaryngoscopes are now being advocated as the universal device for airway management due to their ability to provide an improved glottic visualisation. Due to their ability to see around the corners, they obviate the need to align the airway axes and thus may lead to less airway stimulation. This may result in less haemodynamic response during laryngoscopy and intubation. The present study was designed to compare the haemodynamic response to intubation with King Vision and C-MAC® videolaryngoscopes.
Methods: After obtaining informed consent, adults with unanticipated difficult intubation, scheduled to undergo surgery under general anaesthesia were randomised to be intubated with either King Vision (Group K) or C-MAC® (Group C) videolaryngoscope. Following a standardised general anaesthesia induction protocol all subjects were intubated with the allocated videolaryngoscope and haemodynamic parameters (heart rate, systolic pressure, diastolic pressure and mean arterial pressure) were recorded at specific time points. Statistical analysis was done using the SPSS Software (version 18.0).
Results: The changes in the heart rate, systolic pressure, diastolic pressure and mean arterial pressure following laryngoscopy and intubation with the allocated videolaryngoscope were statistically similar between the two groups at all time points.
Conclusion: Haemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation with King Vision and C-MAC® videolaryngoscopes were similar.


[1] Shribman AJ, Smith G, Achola KJ. Cardiovascular and catecholamine responses to laryngoscopy with and without tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1987; 59(3): 295-9.
[2] Henderson J. Airway management in the adult. In: Miller RD, editor. Miller’s Anesthesia. 7th ed. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone. 2010; 1573-610.
[3] Rose DK, Cohen MM. The airway: problems and predictions in 18,500 patients. Can J Anaesth. 1994; 41(5):372-383.
[4] Helfman SM, Gold MI, DeLisser EA, Herrington CA. Which drug prevents tachycardia and hypertension associated with tracheal intubation: Lidocaine, fentanyl, or esmolol? Anesth Analg. 1991; 72(4): 482-6.
[5] Thompson JP, Hall AP, Russell J, Cagney B, Rowbatham DJ. Effect of remifentanil on the haemodynamic response to orotracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1998; 80(4): 467-469.
[6] McCoy EP, Mirakhur RK, McCloskey BV. A comparison of the stress response to laryngoscopy: The Macintosh versus the McCoy blade. Anaesthesia. 1995; 50(11): 943-946.
[7] Kitamura T, Yamada Y, Chinzei M, Du HL, Hanaoka K. Attenuation of haemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation by the Stylet Scope. Br J Anaesth. 2001; 86(2):275-277.
[8] Myatra SN, Shah A, Kundra P, Patwa A, Ramkumar V, Divatia JV et al. All India Difficult Airway Association 2016 guidelines for the management of unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation in adults. Indian J Anaesth. 2016; 60(12): 885-898.
[9] Zaouter C, Calderon J, Hemmerling M. Videolaryngoscopy as a new standard of care. Br J Anaesth. 2015; 114(2): 181-183.
[10] Cook TM, Boniface NJ, Seller C, Hughes J, Damen C, MacDonald L, et al. Universal videolaryngoscopy: a structured approach to conversion to videolaryngoscopy for all intubation in an anaesthetic and intensive care department. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120(1): 173-180.
[11] Cooper RM. Implementing universal videolaryngoscopy: how to do it and what to expect. Br J Anaesth. 2018; 120(1): 13-15.
[12] Levitan RM, Ochroch EA, Kush S, Shofer FS, Hollander JE. Assessment of airway visualization: Validation of the Percentage of Glottis Opening (POGO) scale. Acad Emerg Med. 1998; 5(9): 919-923.
[13] Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL, Lee K, Segal R. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. Br J Anaesth. 2012; 109(3): 439-43.
[14] Haidry MA, Khan FA. Comparison of hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation with Macintosh and McCoy laryngoscopes. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2013; 29(2): 196-199.
[15] Beyer K, Yaffe P, Halfon P, Pittet V, Pichard S, Haller G, et al. Hypertension and intra-operative incidents: a multicentre study of 125000 surgical procedures in Swiss hospitals. Anaesthesia. 2009; 64(5):494-502.
[16] Goldman L, Caldera DL. Risks of general anesthesia and elective operation in hypertensive patient. Anesthesiology. 1979; 50(4):285-292.
[17] Carassiti M, Zanzonico R, Cecchini S, Silvestri S, Cataldo R, Agro FE. Force and pressure distribution using Macintosh and GlideScope laryngoscopes in normal and difficult airways: a manikin study. Br J Anaesth. 2010; 108(1): 146-151.
[18] Lee RA, Van Zundert AA, Maassen RL, Willems RJ, Beeke LP, Schaaper JN et al. Forces applied to the maxillary incisors during video-assisted intubation. Anesth Analg. 2009; 108(1): 187-191.
[19] Jain S, Maroof M, Verma V, Alam M, Gogia S, Khan RM. Truview Evo2 laryngosocpy is superior to Macintosh laryngoscopy in terms of force used, glottis view and hemodynamic changes. Anesth Analg. 2007; 104(2S): S-119.
[20] Kumar N, Lamba K, Ratra M. A randomised study of Macintosh, Mccoy and Truview Evo2 laryngoscopes in the intubation scenario: Comparison. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2010; 26(1): 64-68.
[21] Dashti M, Amini S, Azarfarin R, Totonchi A, Hatami M. Hemodynamic changes following endotracheal intubation with Glidescope videolaryngoscope in patient with untreated hypertension. Res Cardiovasc Med. 2014; 3(2): e17598.
[22] Woo CH, Kim SH, Park JY, Bae JY, Kwak IS, Mun SH, et al. Macintosh laryngoscope vs. Pentax-AWS videolaryngoscope: comparison of efficacy and cardiovascular responses to tracheal intubation in major burn patients. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012; 62(2): 119-124.
[23] Maassen RLJG, Pieters BMA, Maathuis B, Serroyen J, Marcus MAE, Wouters P, et al. Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy causes less cardiovascular response compared to classic direct laryngoscopy, in cardiac patients according a standard hospital protocol. Acta Anaesth Belg. 2012; 63(4): 181-186.
[24] Tempe DK, Chaudhary K, Diwakar A, Datt V, Virmani S, Tomar AS, Mohandas A, Mohire VB. Comparison of hemodynamic responses to laryngoscopy and intubation with Truview PCD TM , McGrath ® and Macintosh laryngoscope in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: A randomized prospective study. Ann Card Anaesth. 2016; 19(1): 68-75.
[25] Kanchi M, Nair HC, Banakal S, Murthy K, Murugesan C. Haemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation in coronary artery disease: Direct versus video laryngoscopy. Indian J Anaesth. 2011; 55(3): 260-265.
[26] Amimi S, Shakib. Hemodynamic changes following endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing caesarean section with general anesthesia: Application of Glidescope videolaryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope. Anesth Pain Med. 2015; 5(2): e21836.
[27] Bucx MJL, Van Geel RTM, Scheck PAE, Stijnen T. Cardiovascular effects of forces applied during laryngosocpy:The importance of tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia. 1992; 47(12): 1029-1033.
How to Cite
Padavarahalli Thammanna P, Marasandra Seetharam K, Channasandra Anandaswamy T, Rath P, Chamanhalli Rajappa G, Joseph J. Comparison of Haemodynamic Response to Intubation with KingVision and C-MAC® Videolaryngoscope in Adults. Arch Anesth & Crit Care. 6(2):65-0.
Research Article(s)