Literature DB >> 27090535

A deliberately restricted laryngeal view with the GlideScope® video laryngoscope is associated with faster and easier tracheal intubation when compared with a full glottic view: a randomized clinical trial.

Yuqi Gu1, Joshua Robert1, George Kovacs1, Andrew D Milne1, Ian Morris1, Orlando Hung1, Kirk MacQuarrie1, Sean Mackinnon2, J Adam Law3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: During video laryngoscopy (VL) with angulated or hyper-curved blades, it is sometimes difficult to complete tracheal intubation despite a full view of the larynx. When using indirect VL, it has been suggested that it may be preferable to obtain a deliberately restricted view of the larynx to facilitate passage of the endotracheal tube. We used the GlideScope® GVL video laryngoscope (GVL) to test whether deliberately obtaining a restricted view would result in faster and easier tracheal intubation than with a full view of the larynx.
METHODS: We recruited 163 elective surgical patients and randomly allocated the participants to one of two groups: Group F, where a full view of the larynx was obtained and held during GVL-facilitated tracheal intubation, and Group R, with a restricted view of the larynx (< 50% of glottic opening visible). Study investigators experienced in indirect VL performed the intubations. The intubations were recorded and the video recordings were subsequently assessed for total time to intubation, ease of intubation using a visual analogue scale (VAS; where 0 = easy and 100 = difficult), first-attempt success rate, and oxygen saturation after intubation. Complications were also assessed.
RESULTS: The median [interquartile range (IQR)] time to intubation was faster in Group R than in Group F (27 [22-36] sec vs 36 [27-48] sec, respectively; median difference, 9 sec; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5 to 13; P < 0.001). The median [IQR] VAS rating for ease of intubation was also better in Group R than in Group F (14 [6-42) mm vs 50 mm [17-65], respectively; median difference, 20 mm; 95% CI, 10 to 31; P < 0.001). There was no difference between groups regarding the first-attempt success rate, oxygen saturation immediately after intubation, or complications.
CONCLUSIONS: Using the GVL with a deliberately restricted view of the larynx resulted in faster and easier tracheal intubation than with a full view and with no additional complications. Our study suggests that obtaining a full or Cormack-Lehane grade 1 view may not be desirable when using the GVL. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02144207.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27090535     DOI: 10.1007/s12630-016-0654-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can J Anaesth        ISSN: 0832-610X            Impact factor:   5.063


  4 in total

1.  Transfer of skills and comparison of performance between king vision® video laryngoscope and macintosh blade following an AHA airway management course.

Authors:  Lukas E Wolf; José A Aguirre; Christian Vogt; Christian Keller; Alain Borgeat; Heinz R Bruppacher
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 2.217

2.  Airway management at Level 1 trauma center in the era of video laryngoscopy.

Authors:  Jack Louro; Roman Dudaryk; Yvette Rodriguez; Richard P Dutton; Richard H Epstein
Journal:  Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci       Date:  2020-03-06

3.  Learning curve and performance in simulated difficult airway for the novel C-MAC® video-stylet and C-MAC® Macintosh video laryngoscope: A prospective randomized manikin trial.

Authors:  James Pius; Ruediger R Noppens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 1. Difficult airway management encountered in an unconscious patient.

Authors:  J Adam Law; Laura V Duggan; Mathieu Asselin; Paul Baker; Edward Crosby; Andrew Downey; Orlando R Hung; Philip M Jones; François Lemay; Rudiger Noppens; Matteo Parotto; Roanne Preston; Nick Sowers; Kathryn Sparrow; Timothy P Turkstra; David T Wong; George Kovacs
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2021-06-18       Impact factor: 5.063

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.