Literature DB >> 27106971

Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

M Kleine-Brueggeney1, R Greif2, P Schoettker3, G L Savoldelli4, S Nabecker2, L G Theiler2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Videolaryngoscopes are aggressively marketed, but independent evaluation in difficult airways is scarce. This multicentre, prospective randomized controlled trial evaluates six videolaryngoscopes in patients with a simulated difficult airway.
METHODS: With ethics committee approval and written informed consent, 12 senior anaesthetists intubated the trachea of 720 patients. A cervical collar limited mouth opening and neck movement, making intubation difficult. We evaluated three unchannelled (C-MAC™ D-blade, GlideScope™, and McGrath™) and three channelled videolaryngoscopes (Airtraq™, A.P. Advance™ difficult airway blade, and KingVision™). The primary outcome was first-attempt intubation success rate. Secondary outcomes included overall success rate, laryngeal view, intubation times, and side-effects. The primary hypothesis for every videolaryngoscope was that the 95% confidence interval of first-attempt success rate is ≥90%.
RESULTS: Mouth opening was decreased from 46 (sd 7) to 23 (3) mm with the cervical collar. First-attempt success rates were 98% (McGrath™), 95% (C-MAC™ D-blade), 87% (KingVision™), 85% (GlideScope™ and Airtraq™), and 37% (A.P. Advance™, P<0.01). The 95% confidence interval of first-attempt success rate was >90% only for the McGrath™. Overall success, laryngeal view, and intubation times differed significantly between videolaryngoscopes (all P<0.01). Side-effects were minor.
CONCLUSIONS: This trial revealed differences in the performance of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with restricted neck movement and limited mouth opening. In this setting, first-attempt success rates were 85-98%, except for the A.P. Advance™ difficult airway blade. Highest success and lowest tissue trauma rates were achieved by the McGrath™ and C-MAC™ D-blade, highlighting the importance of the videolaryngoscope blade design. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: identifier NCT01692535.
© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  anaesthetic techniques, laryngoscopy; equipment, airway; intubation, tracheal tube

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27106971     DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew058

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Anaesth        ISSN: 0007-0912            Impact factor:   9.166


  37 in total

1.  Progress in difficult airway management.

Authors:  Takashi Asai
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2017-03-03       Impact factor: 2.078

2.  Letter to the Editor concerning "Spinal movement and dural sac compression during airway management in a cadaveric model with atlanto-occipital instability" by Liao S, Schneider NRE, Weilbacher F, et al. (2017) Eur Spine J; doi:10.1007/s00586-017-5416-9.

Authors:  Yi Liu; Fu Shan Xue; Gui-Zhen Yang
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2018-01-15       Impact factor: 3.134

3.  Patient factors associated with difficult flexible bronchoscopic intubation under general anesthesia: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Taher Touré; Stephan R Williams; Mahmoud Kerouch; Monique Ruel
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2020-01-17       Impact factor: 5.063

4.  Intubation without use of stylet for McGrath videolaryngoscopy in patients with expected normal airway: A randomized noninferiority trial.

Authors:  Hyun Jeong Kwak; Sook Young Lee; Su Youn Lee; Yong Beom Kim; Jong Yeop Kim
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 1.889

Review 5.  Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Jia Jiang; Danxu Ma; Bo Li; Yun Yue; Fushan Xue
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 9.097

Review 6.  Current Evidences for the Use of UEscope in Airway Management.

Authors:  Fu-Shan Xue; Ben-Quan Yang; Ya-Yang Liu; Hui-Xian Li; Gui-Zhen Yang
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2017-08-05       Impact factor: 2.628

7.  Stylet angulation for routine endotracheal intubation with McGrath videolaryngoscope.

Authors:  Jiyoung Lee; Jong Yeop Kim; Se Yoon Kang; Hyun Jeong Kwak; Dongchul Lee; Sook Young Lee
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2017-02       Impact factor: 1.889

8.  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

9.  Tracheal intubation with channeled vs. non-channeled videolaryngoscope blades.

Authors:  Peter Biro; Martin Schlaepfer
Journal:  Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care       Date:  2018-10

10.  Predictors of difficult intubation when using a videolaryngoscope with an intermediate-angled blade during the first attempt: a prospective observational study.

Authors:  Hye Jin Kim; Hye Rim Kim; So Yeon Kim; Ha Yan Kim; Wyun Kon Park; Min Ho Lee; Hyun Joo Kim
Journal:  J Clin Monit Comput       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 1.977

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.