European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Context: Our aim was to study the haemodynamic response to endotracheal intubation through Linscope and compare it to the hemodynamic response to intubation with Kingvision video laryngoscope. The Kingvision has demonstrated promise in a number of settings while Linscope video laryngoscope is a newly launched device and no literature is available to the best of our knowledge. Aims: We aimed to compare the Linscope video laryngoscope with Kingvision video laryngoscope for haemodynamic response. Settings and Design: A Randomized Controlled Study. Methods and Material: Seventy patients after approval from Board of Study and ethical clearance divided into 2 groups. In Group A patient were intubated with Linscope videolayngoscope and in Group B patient were intubated with Kingvision videolaryngoscope as per the protocol. Hemodynamic parameters, mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate were recorded before and after induction of anesthesia and every minute up to 5 min after intubation. Results: Patients of Group A recorded a minimal rise in peak mean arterial blood pressure. In comparison patients of Group B recorded a significant sustained rise in mean arterial blood pressure The insertion of endotracheal tube through kingvision video laryngoscope assembly precipitated a rise in mean arterial blood pressure. However,this rise was not statistically significant when compared with baseline value. The increase in heart rate changes were recorded in both the groups, of which immediate post intubation Group B showed significant rise but overall, the rise was not significant. Conclusion: We conclude that intubation through Linscope generates a lower pressor response  to intubation in comparison to intubation using Kingvision video laryngoscope