Dataset Information

Nociceptive stimulation during Macintosh direct laryngoscopy compared with McGrath Mac videolaryngoscopy: A randomized trial using indirect evaluation using an automated administration of propofol and remifentanil.

ABSTRACT: Decrease of the nociceptive stimulation induced by laryngoscopy could be an advantage for patients without risk of difficult intubation. The present study aimed to compare the difference in nociceptive stimulation between the use of a conventional laryngoscope or of a videolaryngoscope. Amount of nociception was assessed indirectly using the peak remifentanil concentration determined by a closed-loop administration of propofol and remifentanil with bispectral index (BIS) as the input signal (target 50).A prospective single-center randomized study was performed including surgical patients without predictable risk of difficult mask ventilation or of difficult tracheal intubation. Forty consecutive surgery patients were randomly assigned to CL group (conventional laryngoscope) or VL group (McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope). Induction of anesthesia was performed automatically using the closed-loop system and myorelaxation with atracurium. The allocation was revealed just before tracheal intubation. The primary outcome was the peak plasma remifentanil concentration observed during the 5-minute period which followed intubation.Sixteen patients in the CL group and 11 in the VL group were analyzed. Plasmatic remifentanil and propofol concentrations were similar in both groups either before tracheal intubation or during the 5?minutes following intubation. There was a nonsignificant between-group difference (P?=?.09) for the peak concentration of remifentanil. A comparable result was observed for other outcomes except for the heart rate which increased in the CL group.Use of the videolaryngoscope McGrath Mac did not reduce the nociceptive stimulation induced during intubation as evaluated by the automatically administered remifentanil concentration.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02245789.

SUBMITTER: Ing R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5617715 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nociceptive stimulation during Macintosh direct laryngoscopy compared with McGrath Mac videolaryngoscopy: A randomized trial using indirect evaluation using an automated administration of propofol and remifentanil.

Ing Rathvirak R Liu Ngai N Chazot Thierry T Fessler Julien J Dreyfus Jean François JF Fischler Marc M Le Guen Morgan M

Medicine 20170901 38

<h4>Background</h4>Decrease of the nociceptive stimulation induced by laryngoscopy could be an advantage for patients without risk of difficult intubation. The present study aimed to compare the difference in nociceptive stimulation between the use of a conventional laryngoscope or of a videolaryngoscope. Amount of nociception was assessed indirectly using the peak remifentanil concentration determined by a closed-loop administration of propofol and remifentanil with bispectral index (BIS) as th ...[more]

PMID: 28930848

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.

Project description:IntroductionThe direct laryngoscopy technique using a Macintosh blade is the first choice globally for most anaesthetists. In case of an unanticipated difficult airway, the complication rate increases with the number of intubation attempts. Recently, McGrath MAC (McGrath) video laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for securing an airway by tracheal intubation because it allows the visualisation of the glottis without a direct line of sight. Several studies and case reports have highlighted the benefit of the video laryngoscope in the visualisation of the glottis and found it to be superior in difficult intubation situations. The aim of this study was to compare the first-pass intubation success rate using the (McGrath) video laryngoscope compared with conventional direct laryngoscopy in surgical patients.Methods and analysisThe EMMA trial is a multicentre, open-label, patient-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Consecutive patients requiring tracheal intubation are randomly allocated to either the McGrath video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscopy using the Macintosh laryngoscope. The expected rate of successful first-pass intubation is 95% in the McGrath group and 90% in the Macintosh group. Each group must include a total of 1000 patients to achieve 96% power for detecting a difference at the 5% significance level. Successful intubation with the first attempt is the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints are the time to intubation, attempts for successful intubation, the necessity of alternatives, visualisation of the glottis using the Cormack & Lehane score and percentage of glottic opening score and definite complications.Ethics and disseminationThe project was approved by the local ethics committee of the Medical Association of the Rhineland Palatine state and Westphalia-Lippe. The results of this study will be made available in the form of manuscripts for publication and presentations at national and international meetings.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov NCT 02611986; pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:King Vision and McGrath MAC video laryngoscopes (VLs) are increasingly used. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of nasotracheal intubation in patients with predicted difficult intubations using non-channeled King Vision VL, McGrath MAC VL or Macintosh laryngoscope by experienced intubators. METHODS:Ninety nine ASA I or II adult patients, scheduled for oral maxillofacial surgeries with El-Ganzouri risk index 1-7 were enrolled. Patients were randomly allocated to intubate with one of three laryngoscopes (non-channeled King Vision, McGrath MAC and Macintosh). The intubators were experienced with more than 100 successful nasotracheal intubations using each device. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes included first success rate, time required for viewing the glottis, Cormack-Lehane grade of glottis view, the number of assist maneuvers, hemodynamic responses, the subjective evaluating of sensations of performances and associated complications. RESULTS:The intubation time of King Vision and McGrath group was comparable (37.6?±?7.3?s vs. 35.4?±?8.8?s) and both were shorter than Macintosh group (46.8?±?10.4?s, p?<?0.001). Both King Vision and McGrath groups had a 100% first attempt success rate, significantly higher than Macintosh group (85%, p?<?0.05). The laryngoscopy time was comparable between King Vision and McGrath group (16.7?±?5.5?s vs. 15.6?±?6.3?s) and was shorter than Macintosh group (22.8?±?7.2?s, p?<?0.05) also. Compared with Macintosh laryngoscope, Glottis view was obviously improved when exposed with either non-channeled King Vision or McGrath MAC VL (p?<?0.001), and assist maneuvers required were reduced (p?<?0.001). The maximum fluctuations of MAP were significantly attenuated in VL groups (47.7?±?12.5?mmHg and 45.1?±?10.3?mmHg vs. 54.9?±?10.2?mmHg, p?<?0.05 and p?<?0.01). Most device insertions were graded as excellent in McGrath group, followed by Macintosh and King Vision group (p?=?0.0014). The tube advancements were easier in VLs compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (p?<?0.001). Sore throat was found more frequent in Macintosh group compared with King Vision group (p?<?0.05). CONCLUSIONS:Non-channeled King Vision and McGrath MAC VLs were comparable and both devices facilitated nasotracheal intubation in managing predicted difficult intubations compared with Macintosh laryngoscope. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials registration number NCT03126344 . Registered on April 24, 2017.

Dataset Information

Nociceptive stimulation during Macintosh direct laryngoscopy compared with McGrath Mac videolaryngoscopy: A randomized trial using indirect evaluation using an automated administration of propofol and remifentanil.

Publications

Nociceptive stimulation during Macintosh direct laryngoscopy compared with McGrath Mac videolaryngoscopy: A randomized trial using indirect evaluation using an automated administration of propofol and remifentanil.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure