Comparison of the intubation success rate between the intubating catheter and videolaryngoscope in difficult airways: a prospective randomized trial
Comparação da taxa de sucesso de intubação entre o cateter de intubação e o videolaringoscópio em vias aéreas difíceis: um estudo prospectivo randomizado
Aysun Ozdemirkan; Ozkan Onal; Irem Gumus Ozcan; Emine Aslanlar; Ali Saltali; Mehmet Sari; Cansu Ciftci; Hasan Huseyin Bayram
Abstract
Keywords
Resumo
Introdução: Vários dispositivos e algoritmos já foram examinados e comparados para o manejo de vias aéreas difíceis. No entanto, não existe estudo comparando o sucesso do Cateter de Intubação (CI) e do Videolaringoscópio (VL) em pacientes de difícil intubação. Nosso objetivo foi comparar o CI Frova e o VL McGrath em termos de taxas de sucesso de intubação em pacientes com intubação difícil.
Métodos: Estudo prospectivo e randomizado realizado em um hospital universitário. Pacientes operados sob anestesia geral e cujo manejo das vias aéreas foi considerado difícil foram incluídos neste estudo. Os pacientes foram divididos aleatoriamente em dois grupos por envelopes contendo um número: o grupo cateter de intubação (Grupo CI), intubado com o CI Frova, e o grupo videolaringoscópio (Grupo VL), intubado com o VL McGrath. Os dados do estudo foram coletados por um técnico que desconhecia os grupos de estudo e o tipo de dispositivo utilizado no procedimento de intubação.
Resultados: Um total de 49 pacientes com via aérea difícil foram incluídos no estudo, incluindo 25 pacientes no Grupo CI Frova e 24 pacientes no Grupo VL McGrath. A taxa de intubação bem-sucedida foi determinada em 88% no Grupo IC e 66% no Grupo VL (p = 0,074). O tempo médio de tentativa de intubação no Grupo VL foi de 44,62 segundos, enquanto no Grupo CI foi de 51,12 segundos (p = 0,593). O Grupo VL apresentou um grau de Cormack-Lehane significativamente menor em comparação ao Grupo CI (p <0,001).
Conclusão: CI Frova é candidato a instrumento indispensável em termos de custo-efetividade em clínicas como anestesia e medicina de emergência, onde casos difíceis de intubação são frequentemente encontrados. No entanto, a combinação de CI Frova IC e VL McGrath parece ter mais sucesso em situações de intubação difíceis, portanto, estudos futuros devem se concentrar no uso desses dois dispositivos juntos.
Palavras-chave
References
1 Asai T. Videolaryngoscopes: do they truly have roles in difficult airways? Anesthesiology. 2012;116:515-7.
2 Zaouter C, Calderon J, Hemmerling TM. Videolaryngoscopy as a new standard of care. Br J Anaesth. 2015;114:181-3.
3 Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia. 1984;39:1105-11.
4 Taylor AM, Peck M, Launcelott S, et al. The McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope vs the Macintosh laryngoscope: a randomised, controlled trial in patients with a simulated difficult airway. Anaesthesia. 2013;68:142-7.
5 Shippey B, Ray D, McKeown D. Use of the McGrath videolaryngoscope in the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:116-9.
6 Asai T, Murao K, Shingu K. Training method of applying pressure on the neck for laryngoscopy: use of a videolaryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2003;58:602-3.
7 Lee J, Kim JY, Kang SY, et al. Stylet angulation for routine endotracheal intubation with McGrath videolaryngoscope. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:6152.
8 Noppens RR, Möbus S, Heid F, et al. Evaluation of the McGrath Series 5 videolaryngoscope after failed direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:716-20.
9 Messa MJ, Kupas DF, Dunham DL. Comparison of bougie-assisted intubation with traditional endotracheal intubation in a simulated difficult airway. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011;15:30-3.
10 Hodzovic I, Latto IP, Wilkes AR, et al. Evaluation of Frova, single-use intubation introducer, in a manikin. Comparison with Eschmann multiple-use introducer and Portex single-use introducer. Anaesthesia. 2004;59:811-6.
11 Hodzovic I, Wilkes AR, Stacey M, et al. Evaluation of clinical effectiveness of the Frova single-use tracheal tube introducer. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:189-94.
12 Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:439-43.
13 Wetsch WA, Spelten O, Hellmich M, et al. Comparison of different video laryngoscopes for emergency intubation in a standardized airway manikin with immobilized cervical spine by experienced anaesthetists. A randomized, controlled crossover trial. Resuscitation. 2012;83:740-5.
14 Theiler L, Hermann K, Schoettker P, et al. SWIVIT - Swiss video-intubation trial evaluating video-laryngoscopes in a simulated difficult airway scenario: study protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial in Switzerland. Trials. 2013;14:94.
15 Onal O, Gumus I, Ozdemirkan A, et al. A comparative randomized trial of intubation success in difficult intubation cases: the use of a Frova intubation catheter versus a Bonfils intubation fiberoscope. Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne. 2019;14:486-94.
16 Aziz Mf, Abrons Ro, Cattano D, et al. First-attempt intubation success of video laryngoscopy in patients with anticipated difficult direct laryngoscopy: a multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing the C-MAC D-bladeversus the glidescope in a mixed provider and diverse patient population. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:740-50.
17 Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, et al. A. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:251-70.
18 Frova G. Do videolaryngoscopes have a new role in the SIAARTI difficult airway management algorithm? Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:637-40.
19 Healy DW, Maties O, Hovord D, et al. A systematic review of the role of videolaryngoscopy in successful orotracheal intubation. BMC Anesthesiol. 2012;14:32.
20 Gregory P, Woollard M, Lighton D, et al. Comparison of malleable stylet and reusable and disposable bougies by paramedics in a simulated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia. 2012;67:371-6.
21 Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society intubation guidelines working group. Difficult Airway Society 2015 Guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:827-48.
22 Janakiraman C, Hodzovic I, Reddy S, et al. Evaluation of tracheal tube introducers in simulated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:309-14.
23 Gómez-Ríos MÁ, Pinegger S, de Carrillo Mantilla M, et al. A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq® NT, McGrath® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin. Rev Bras Anestesiol. 2016;66:289-97.
24 Wallace CD, Foulds LT, McLeod GA, et al. A comparison of the ease of tracheal intubation using a McGrath MAC laryngoscope and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:1281-5.
25 Suppan L, Tramèr MR, Niquille M, et al. Alternative intubation techniques vs Macintosh laryngoscopy in patients with cervical spine immobilization: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:27-36.
Submitted date:
10/17/2019
Accepted date:
04/25/2021
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email