BACKGROUND: In several clinical situations, lung separation and single-lung ventilation (SLV) is essential. In these cases, the double-lumen tube (DLT) is the most widely used device. Bronchial blocker such as Univent or Arndt Blocker serves as an alternative. The EZ-Blocker(®) (EZ; AnaesthetIQ B.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands) is a new device promising to exceed clinical performance of DLT. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of EZ in comparison with conventional left-sided DLT. METHODS:Forty adult patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery requiring thoracotomy and SLV were included in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: EZ (combined with conventional 7.5 or 8.5 mm single-lumen tube) or DLT (37 or 39 Fr left-sided DLT). Time for intubation procedure and time to verification of the correct position of EZ or DLT using fibreoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) were recorded. After surgery, a thoracic surgeon rated the quality of collapse of the lung (1-3 on a three-level scale). RESULTS: Time for intubation using DLT 85.5 (54.8) s was significantly faster (P<0.001) than using EZ 192 (89.7) s, whereas time for bronchoscopy was not significantly different (P=0.556). Conditions of surgery were rated equally [DLT 1.3 (0.6) vs EZ 1.4 (0.6), P=0.681]. CONCLUSIONS: Although time for intubation was longer with the EZ, the device proved to be an efficient and easy-to-use device. The EZ is a valuable alternative device to conventional DLT. Verification of the correct position of the EZ by FOB seems to be obligatory. This study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT01171560).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In several clinical situations, lung separation and single-lung ventilation (SLV) is essential. In these cases, the double-lumen tube (DLT) is the most widely used device. Bronchial blocker such as Univent or Arndt Blocker serves as an alternative. The EZ-Blocker(®) (EZ; AnaesthetIQ B.V., Rotterdam, The Netherlands) is a new device promising to exceed clinical performance of DLT. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical performance of EZ in comparison with conventional left-sided DLT. METHODS: Forty adult patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery requiring thoracotomy and SLV were included in this study. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: EZ (combined with conventional 7.5 or 8.5 mm single-lumen tube) or DLT (37 or 39 Fr left-sided DLT). Time for intubation procedure and time to verification of the correct position of EZ or DLT using fibreoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) were recorded. After surgery, a thoracic surgeon rated the quality of collapse of the lung (1-3 on a three-level scale). RESULTS: Time for intubation using DLT 85.5 (54.8) s was significantly faster (P<0.001) than using EZ 192 (89.7) s, whereas time for bronchoscopy was not significantly different (P=0.556). Conditions of surgery were rated equally [DLT 1.3 (0.6) vs EZ 1.4 (0.6), P=0.681]. CONCLUSIONS: Although time for intubation was longer with the EZ, the device proved to be an efficient and easy-to-use device. The EZ is a valuable alternative device to conventional DLT. Verification of the correct position of the EZ by FOB seems to be obligatory. This study was registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT01171560).
Authors: Tamás Végh; Marianna Juhász; Attila Enyedi; István Takács; József Kollár; Béla Fülesdi Journal: J Anesth Date: 2012-01-26 Impact factor: 2.078
Authors: Joachim Schmidt; Andrea Irouschek; Sebastian Heinrich; Oliver Oster; Peter Klein; Torsten Birkholz Journal: World J Surg Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.352