M F Aziz1, E O Bayman2, M M Van Tienderen3, M M Todd2, A M Brambrink3. 1. Oregon Health & Science University, Mail Code KPV 5A, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239, USA azizm@ohsu.edu. 2. The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA. 3. Oregon Health & Science University, Mail Code KPV 5A, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97239, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation using acute-angle videolaryngoscopy achieves high success rates, but is not without difficulty. We aimed to determine predictors of 'difficult videolaryngoscopy'. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a data set (n=1100) gathered from a multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial of patients for whom difficult direct laryngoscopy was anticipated and who were intubated with one of twovideolaryngoscopy devices (GlideScope(®) or C-MAC(®) with D-blade). 'Difficult videolaryngoscopy' was defined as 'first intubation time >60 s' or 'first attempt intubation failure'. A multivariate logistic regression model along with stepwise model selection techniques was performed to determine independent predictors of difficult videolaryngoscopy. RESULTS:Of 1100 patients, 301 were identified as difficult videolaryngoscopies. By univariate analysis, head and neck position, provider, type of surgery, and mouth opening were associated with difficult videolaryngoscopy (P<0.05). According to the multivariate logistic regression model, characteristics associated with greater risk for difficult videolaryngoscopy were as follows: (i) head and neck position of 'supine sniffing' vs 'supine neutral' {odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.14, 2.31]}; (ii) undergoing otolaryngologic or cardiac surgery vs general surgery (OR 1.89, 95% CI [1.19, 3.01] and OR 6.13, 95% CI [1.85, 20.37], respectively); (iii) intubation performed by an attending anaesthestist vs a supervised resident (OR 1.83, 95% CI [1.14, 2.92]); and (iv) small mouth opening (OR 1.18, 95% CI [1.02, 1.36]). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis of an existing data set indicates four covariates associated with difficult acute-angle videolaryngoscopy, of which patient position and provider level are modifiable.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation using acute-angle videolaryngoscopy achieves high success rates, but is not without difficulty. We aimed to determine predictors of 'difficult videolaryngoscopy'. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a data set (n=1100) gathered from a multicentre prospective randomized controlled trial of patients for whom difficult direct laryngoscopy was anticipated and who were intubated with one of two videolaryngoscopy devices (GlideScope(®) or C-MAC(®) with D-blade). 'Difficult videolaryngoscopy' was defined as 'first intubation time >60 s' or 'first attempt intubation failure'. A multivariate logistic regression model along with stepwise model selection techniques was performed to determine independent predictors of difficult videolaryngoscopy. RESULTS: Of 1100 patients, 301 were identified as difficult videolaryngoscopies. By univariate analysis, head and neck position, provider, type of surgery, and mouth opening were associated with difficult videolaryngoscopy (P<0.05). According to the multivariate logistic regression model, characteristics associated with greater risk for difficult videolaryngoscopy were as follows: (i) head and neck position of 'supine sniffing' vs 'supine neutral' {odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.14, 2.31]}; (ii) undergoing otolaryngologic or cardiac surgery vs general surgery (OR 1.89, 95% CI [1.19, 3.01] and OR 6.13, 95% CI [1.85, 20.37], respectively); (iii) intubation performed by an attending anaesthestist vs a supervised resident (OR 1.83, 95% CI [1.14, 2.92]); and (iv) small mouth opening (OR 1.18, 95% CI [1.02, 1.36]). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis of an existing data set indicates four covariates associated with difficult acute-angle videolaryngoscopy, of which patient position and provider level are modifiable.
Authors: Marshal B Kaplan; Carin A Hagberg; Denham S Ward; Ansgar Brambrink; Ashwani K Chhibber; Thomas Heidegger; Leonardo Lozada; Andranik Ovassapian; David Parsons; James Ramsay; Wolfram Wilhelm; Bernhard Zwissler; Haus J Gerig; Christian Hofstetter; Suzanne Karan; Nevin Kreisler; Robert M Pousman; Andreas Thierbach; Marc Wrobel; George Berci Journal: J Clin Anesth Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 9.452
Authors: Jeremy S Collins; Harry J M Lemmens; Jay B Brodsky; John G Brock-Utne; Richard M Levitan Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Michael F Aziz; Ron O Abrons; Davide Cattano; Emine O Bayman; David E Swanson; Carin A Hagberg; Michael M Todd; Ansgar M Brambrink Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: H Ilper; A Grossbach; C Franz-Jäger; C Byhahn; M Klages; H H Ackermann; K Zacharowski; T Kunz Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2018-02-01 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: J Adam Law; Laura V Duggan; Mathieu Asselin; Paul Baker; Edward Crosby; Andrew Downey; Orlando R Hung; George Kovacs; François Lemay; Rudiger Noppens; Matteo Parotto; Roanne Preston; Nick Sowers; Kathryn Sparrow; Timothy P Turkstra; David T Wong; Philip M Jones Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 5.063
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