Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Background

During McGrath videolaryngoscope (VL) intubation, a styletted endotracheal tube maintaining an upward distal tip angle is recommended by some manufacturers. However, a styletted endotracheal tube can elicit rare but potentially serious complications. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate that a nonstyletted tube with exaggerated curvature would be noninferior to a styletted tube for orotracheal intubation using McGrath VL in patients with expected normal airway, by comparing the time to intubation and ease of intubation.

Methods

One hundred forty patients, ages 19 to 70 years (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-II), undergoing tracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to the nonstylet group (n = 70) or the stylet group (n = 70). Anesthesia induction consisted of propofol, remifentanil, and rocuronium. The primary outcome was time to intubation assessed by a blind observer. Cormack and Lehane glottic grade, easy of intubation, and intubation difficulty score (IDS) were also assessed.

Results

Median time to intubation [interquartile range] was not different between the nonstylet group and the stylet group (26 [24-32.5] s vs 27 [25-31] s, P = 0.937). There was no significant in median IDS between the nonstylet group and the stylet group (P = 0.695).

Conclusion

This study shows that a nonstyletted endotracheal tube with exaggerated curvature has a similar performance to a styletted tube with a hockey-stick curvature during intubation using McGrath VL regarding time taken to successful intubation and easiness of intubation.

SUBMITTER: Kwak HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5134778 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWe hypothesised that videolaryngoscopy modifies practice of tracheal intubation.DesignRandomised single-blinded study (video and no-video groups).SettingThree institutions: one academic, one non-profit and one profit.ParticipantsPatients >18 years, requiring orotracheal intubation, without predicted difficult intubation. Non-inclusion criterion was patients requiring a rapid-sequence intubation. 300 patients were included, 271 randomised, 256 analysed: 123 in the no-video and 133 in the video groups.InterventionTracheal intubation using a McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope, the sequence being video recorded.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of intubations where assistance is necessary on request of the operator. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables (intubation difficulty scale and its components, percentage of glottic opening score, oesophageal Intubation, duration of intubation, removal of the screen cover in the no-video group, global evaluation of the ease of intubation, bispectral index, heart rate and blood pressure), intraoperative and postoperative complications (hoarseness or sore throat) and cooperation of the anaesthesiology team.ResultsRequirement for assistance was not decreased in the Video group: 36.1% (95% CI 27.9 to 44.9) vs 45.5% (95% CI 36.5 to 54.7) in the no-video group, p=0.74; OR: 0.7 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1) and absolute risk: 0.10 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.22). Intubation difficulty scale was similar in both groups (p=0.05). Percentage of glottic opening score was better in the Video group (median of 100 (95% CI (100 to 100) and 80 (95%CI (80 to 90) in the no-video group; p<0.001) as Cormack and Lehane grade (p=0001). Ease of intubation was considered better in the video group (p<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. Screen cover was removed in 7.3% (95% CI (2.7 to 11.9)) of the cases in the video group. No serious adverse event occurred. Communication and behaviour within the anaesthesia team were appropriate in all cases.ConclusionIn patients without predicted difficult intubation, videolaryngoscopy did not decrease the requirement for assistance to perform intubation.Trial registration numberNCT02926144; Results.

Project description:BackgroundEstablishment of a secure airway is a critical part of neonatal resuscitation in the delivery room and the neonatal unit. Videolaryngoscopy has the potential to facilitate successful endotracheal intubation and decrease adverse consequences of delay in airway stabilization. Videolaryngoscopy may enhance visualization of the glottis and intubation success in neonates.ObjectivesTo determine the efficacy and safety of videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy in decreasing the time and attempts required for endotracheal intubation and increasing the success rate at first intubation in neonates.Search methodsWe used the search strategy of Cochrane Neonatal. In May 2017, we searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating videolaryngoscopy for neonatal endotracheal intubation in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, abstracts of the Pediatric Academic Societies, websites for registered trials at www.clinicaltrials.gov and www.controlled-trials.com, and reference lists of relevant studies.Selection criteriaRCTs or quasi-RCTs in neonates evaluating videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation compared with direct laryngoscopy.Data collection and analysisReview authors performed data collection and analysis as recommended by Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion.We used the GRADE approach to assess the quality of evidence.Main resultsThe search yielded 7057 references of which we identified three RCTs for inclusion, four ongoing trials and one study awaiting classification. All three included RCTs compared videolaryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy during intubation attempts by trainees.Time to intubation was similar between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (mean difference (MD) -0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.50 to 5.26; 2 studies; 311 intubations) (very low quality evidence). Videolaryngoscopy did not decrease the number of intubation attempts (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.07; 2 studies; 427 intubations) (very low quality evidence). Moderate quality evidence suggested that videolaryngoscopy increased the success of intubation at first attempt (typical risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.73; typical risk difference (RD) 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.28; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5, 95% CI 4 to 10; 3 studies; 467 intubation attempts).Desaturation episodes during intubation attempts were similar between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy (MD -0.76, 95% CI -5.74 to 4.23; 2 studies; 359 intubations) (low quality evidence). There was no difference in the incidence of airway trauma due to intubation attempts (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.80; RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.09 to -0.00; 1 study; 213 intubations) (low quality evidence).There were no data available on other adverse effects of videolaryngoscopy.Authors' conclusionsModerate to very low quality evidence suggests that videolaryngoscopy increases the success of intubation in the first attempt but does not decrease the time to intubation or the number of attempts for intubation. However, these studies were conducted with trainees performing the intubations and these results highlight the potential usefulness of the videolaryngoscopy as a teaching tool. Well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are necessary to confirm efficacy and address safety and cost-effectiveness of videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in neonates by trainees and those proficient in direct laryngoscopy.