Literature DB >> 30707125

Compared Efficacy of Four Preoxygenation Methods for Intubation in the ICU: Retrospective Analysis of McGrath Mac Videolaryngoscope Versus Macintosh Laryngoscope (MACMAN) Trial Data.

Arthur Bailly1, Jean-Damien Ricard2,3, Aurelie Le Thuaut4,5, Julie Helms6,7, Toufik Kamel8, Emmanuelle Mercier9, Virginie Lemiale10, Gwenhael Colin1, Jean-Paul Mira11, Raphaël Clere-Jehl6,7, Jonathan Messika2,3, Pierre-Francois Dequin9, Thierry Boulain8, Elie Azoulay10, Benoit Champigneulle12, Jean Reignier13, Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou13.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Severe hypoxemia is the most common serious adverse event during endotracheal intubation. Preoxygenation is performed routinely as a preventive measure. The relative efficacy of the various available preoxygenation devices is unclear. Here, our objective was to assess associations between preoxygenation devices and pulse oximetry values during endotracheal intubation.
DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled superiority trial (McGrath Mac Videolaryngoscope Versus Macintosh Laryngoscope [MACMAN]) comparing videolaryngoscopy to Macintosh laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in critical care.
SETTING: Seven French ICUs. PATIENTS: Three-hundred nineteen of the 371 critically ill adults requiring endotracheal intubation who were included in the MACMAN trial.
INTERVENTIONS: None.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Minimal pulse oximetry value during endotracheal intubation was the primary endpoint. We also sought risk factors for pulse oximetry below 90%. Of 319 patients, 157 (49%) had bag-valve-mask, 71 (22%) noninvasive ventilation, 71 (22%) non-rebreathing mask, and 20 (7%) high-flow nasal oxygen for preoxygenation. Factors independently associated with minimal pulse oximetry value were the Simplified Acute Physiology Score II severity score (p = 0.03), baseline pulse oximetry (p < 0.001), baseline PaO2/FIO2 ratio (p = 0.02), and number of laryngoscopies (p = 0.001). The only independent predictors of pulse oximetry less than 90% were baseline pulse oximetry (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64-0.79; p < 0.001) and preoxygenation device: with bag-valve-mask as the reference, odds ratios were 1.10 (95% CI, 0.25-4.92) with non-rebreathing mask, 0.10 (95% CI, 0.01-0.80) with noninvasive ventilation, and 5.75 (95% CI, 1.15-28.75) with high-flow nasal oxygen.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the main determinants of hypoxemia during endotracheal intubation may be related to critical illness severity and to preexisting hypoxemia. The differences across preoxygenation methods suggest that noninvasive ventilation may deserve preference in patients with marked hypoxemia before endotracheal intubation. Ongoing studies will provide further clarification about the optimal preoxygenation method for endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30707125     DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000003656

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  4 in total

1.  Nasal high-flow preoxygenation for endotracheal intubation in the critically ill patient? Maybe.

Authors:  Gérald Chanques; Samir Jaber
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 17.440

2.  Nasal high-flow preoxygenation for endotracheal intubation in the critically ill patient? Pro.

Authors:  Jean-Damien Ricard; Cesare Gregoretti
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2019-03-19       Impact factor: 17.440

3.  Tracheal Intubation in Emergency Departments in China: A National Cross-Sectional Survey.

Authors:  Yili Dai; Joseph Harold Walline; Heng Yu; Huadong Zhu; Jun Xu; Xuezhong Yu
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-02-25

4.  Nationwide survey on training and device utilization during tracheal intubation in French intensive care units.

Authors:  M Martin; P Decamps; A Seguin; C Garret; L Crosby; O Zambon; A F Miailhe; E Canet; J Reignier; J B Lascarrou
Journal:  Ann Intensive Care       Date:  2020-01-03       Impact factor: 6.925

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.