Dataset Information

The Articulated Oral Airway as an aid to mask ventilation: a prospective, randomized, interventional, non-inferiority study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Oropharyngeal airways are used both to facilitate airway patency during mask ventilation as well as conduits for flexible scope intubation, though none excel at both. A novel device, the Articulated Oral Airway (AOA), is designed to facilitate flexible scope intubation by active displacement of the tongue. Whether this active tongue displacement also facilitates mask ventilation, thus adding dual functionality, is unknown. This study compared the AOA to the Guedel Oral Airway (GOA) in regards to efficacy of mask ventilation of patients with factors predictive of difficult mask ventilation. The hypothesis was that the AOA would be non-inferior to the GOA in terms of expiratory tidal volumes by a margin of 1 ml/kg, thus demonstrating dual functionality.

Methods

In this randomized controlled clinical trial, fifty-eight patients with factors predictive of difficult mask ventilation were mask ventilated with both the GOA and the AOA. Video of the anesthetic monitors were evaluated by a blinded member of the research team, noting inspiratory and expiratory tidal volumes and expiratory CO2 waveforms.

Results

The AOA was found to be non-inferior to the GOA at a margin of 1 ml/kg with a mean weight-standardized expiratory tidal measurement 0.45 ml/kg lower (CI: 0.34-0.57) and inspiratory tidal measurement 0.109 lower (CI: - 0.26-0.04). There was no significant difference in expiratory waveforms (p = 0.2639).

Conclusions

The AOA was non-inferior to the GOA for mask ventilation of patients with predictors of difficult mask ventilation and there was no significant difference in EtCO2 waveforms between the groups. These results were consistent in the subset of patients who were initially difficult to mask ventilate.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03144089 , May 2017.

SUBMITTER: Abrons RO

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8006343 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Test ventilating prior to administration of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) in order to avoid a cannot intubate-cannot ventilate situation is a classic anesthesia teaching. The primary aim of our study was to show that facemask ventilation (FMV) after NMB was not inferior to FMV prior to NMB with respect to exhaled gas volumes before and after their administration. METHODS:This study was approved by the University of Washington Human Subjects Division (Seattle, Washington, USA). Written informed consent was obtained from all patients. Measurements of tidal volume (Vte) as well as other respiratory parameters during FMV were made for 60 s after induction of anesthesia and again after NMB. Difficult, impossible, inadequate, and dead-space only mask ventilation was graded using published definitions. Difficult intubation was defined as >2 attempts at intubation. The primary outcome was non-inferiority in Vte during both study periods defined as a mean difference of <50 mL. Multivariate analysis was performed to assess for interaction between operator experience, patient risk factors for difficult mask ventilation, exhaled volumes, and use of airway adjuncts. RESULTS:Two-hundred and ten patients were studied. Overall, FMV improved after NMBD. The mean (SD) Vte in mL/breath increased from 399 (169) to 428 (166) (mean dif. 30 mL, p = 0.001) and the minute ventilation in L/min from 5.6 (2.5) to 6.3 (2.5) (mean dif. 0.6, p < 0.001). No patient who was difficult to ventilate after induction became impossible after NMB. DISCUSSION:In patients at risk for or judged to be a difficult FMV by clinical grading scales, tidal volumes improved after administration of NMBDs. None of these patients exhibited a decline in ventilation or became impossible to ventilate after NMBDs. Several limitations are noted, including the use of hand-delivered breaths and inability to account for time-related changes in ventilation conditions independent of NMBDs. CONCLUSION:We conclude that FMV is no worse after NMB than before and is likely to improve airway conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02237443 . Registered August 28, 2014.

Project description:BackgroundPressure support (PS) as a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) was considered inferior to continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and T-piece because PS underestimated post-extubation work of breathing in physiologic studies. We aimed to compare PS and CPAP as SBT methods for assessing clinical outcomes in children.MethodsThis was an open label randomized non-inferiority trial conducted between December 2019 and August 2021 among children aged 1 month to 12 years deemed ready for weaning after at least 48 h of invasive ventilation in PICU. Children were randomized to undergo a 2-h SBT with PS of 8 cm H2O in addition to PEEP 5-6 cm H2O or CPAP (5-6 cm H2O). The primary outcome was successful liberation from invasive ventilation for 72 h after first SBT. Secondary outcomes included first SBT pass rate, need for post-extubation respiratory support (high flow oxygen and/or non-invasive ventilation), and length of PICU stay.FindingsOf the 247 enrolled children, 244 completed the trial (121 in PS and 123 in CPAP group). Median (IQR) age was 24 (9, 84) months. Median (IQR) duration of invasive ventilation before randomization was 4.5 (3, 6.5) days. Successful liberation from invasive ventilation after first SBT occurred in 97 (80.2%) children in PS and 93 (75.6%) children in CPAP group [difference 4.6; 95% CI (-5.8, 15); p = 0.39]. First SBT pass rate between PS and CPAP [111 (91.7%) versus 105 (85.4%); difference 6.3; 95% CI (-1.6, 14.3); p = 0.12] was similar. Need for post-extubation respiratory support [52 (43%) versus 49 (40%)], rate of reintubation within 72 h [14 (11.6%) versus 12 (9.8%)] and median (IQR) length of PICU stay [9 (6, 15) versus 8 (5.5, 13) days] were comparable. Four (1.6%) children, all in CPAP group had unfavourable outcome (1 died, 3 discontinued care).InterpretationIn invasively ventilated children, 2-h SBT with pressure support was non-inferior to CPAP in predicting successful liberation from invasive ventilation.FundingNone.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Low tidal volume (= tidal volume ? 6?mL/kg, predicted body weight) ventilation using volume control benefits patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway pressure release ventilation is an alternative to low tidal volume-volume control ventilation, but the release breaths generated are variable and can exceed tidal volume breaths of low tidal volume-volume control. We evaluate the application of a low tidal volume-compatible airway pressure release ventilation protocol that manages release volumes on both clinical and feasibility endpoints. DESIGN:We designed a prospective randomized trial in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We randomized patients to low tidal volume-volume control, low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation, and traditional airway pressure release ventilation with a planned enrollment of 246 patients. The study was stopped early because of low enrollment and inability to consistently achieve tidal volumes less than 6.5?mL/kg in the low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation arm. Although the primary clinical study endpoint was PaO2/FIO2 on study day 3, we highlight the feasibility outcomes related to tidal volumes in both arms. SETTING:Four Intermountain Healthcare tertiary ICUs. PATIENTS:Adult ICU patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation. INTERVENTIONS:Low tidal volume-volume control, airway pressure release ventilation, and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:We observed wide variability and higher tidal (release for airway pressure release ventilation) volumes in both airway pressure release ventilation (8.6?mL/kg; 95% CI, 7.8-9.6) and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (8.0; 95% CI, 7.3-8.9) than volume control (6.8; 95% CI, 6.2-7.5; p = 0.005) with no difference between airway pressure release ventilation and low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation (p = 0.58). Recognizing the limitations of small sample size, we observed no difference in 52 patients in day 3 PaO2/ FIO2 (p = 0.92). We also observed no significant difference between arms in sedation, vasoactive medications, or occurrence of pneumothorax. CONCLUSIONS:Airway pressure release ventilation resulted in release volumes often exceeding 12?mL/kg despite a protocol designed to target low tidal volume ventilation. Current airway pressure release ventilation protocols are unable to achieve consistent and reproducible delivery of low tidal volume ventilation goals. A large-scale efficacy trial of low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation is not feasible at this time in the absence of an explicit, generalizable, and reproducible low tidal volume-airway pressure release ventilation protocol.