Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Can J Anaesth. 2012 Nov;59(11):1032-9. doi: 10.1007/s12630-012-9775-8. Epub 2012 Aug 30.
Endotracheal intubation in critically ill patients is associated with a high risk of complications that tend to increase with multiple attempts at laryngoscopy. In this pilot study, we compared direct laryngoscopy (DL) with video-laryngoscopy (VL) with regard to the number of attempts and other clinical parameters during endotracheal intubation of critically ill patients performed by novice providers.
Patients were randomized to either VL or DL for endotracheal intubation. Exclusion criteria for the study included: requirement for immediate endotracheal intubation, cervical spine precautions, anticipated difficult intubation, oxygen saturation < 90%, or systolic blood pressure < 80 mmHg despite resuscitation. The providers, predominantly non-anesthesiology residents in their first three years of postgraduate training, received a one-hour teaching and mannequin session prior to performing the procedures.
Forty patients, mean age 65 (standard deviation, 16) yr were randomized to VL (n = 20) or DL (n = 20). Sixty percent of the patients received endotracheal intubation for respiratory failure, and all patients received a neuromuscular blocker. Multiple attempts were required in 25/40 (63%) patients, and this did not differ with technique (P = 1.0) Video-laryngoscopy resulted in improved glottic visualization with 85% of patients having a Cormack-Lehane grade 1 view compared with 30% of patients in the DL group (P < 0.001). Total time-to-intubation for VL was 221 sec (interquartile range [IQR 103-291]) vs 156 sec [IQR 67-220] for DL (P = 0.15). Video-laryngoscopy resulted in a lower median SaO(2) (86%) during endotracheal intubation [IQR 75-93] compared with a median SaO(2) of 95% in the DL group [IQR 85-99] (P = 0.04).
Video-laryngoscopy resulted in improved glottic visualization compared with DL; however, this did not translate into improved clinical outcomes. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00911755.
在危重病患者中进行气管插管与并发症风险增加相关,而这种风险往往会随着喉镜检查次数的增加而增加。在这项初步研究中,我们比较了在由新手提供者进行的危重病患者气管插管中,直接喉镜(DL)与视频喉镜(VL)在尝试次数和其他临床参数方面的差异。
患者被随机分配到 VL 或 DL 进行气管插管。研究的排除标准包括:需要立即进行气管插管、颈椎固定、预计插管困难、氧饱和度<90%,或尽管进行复苏但收缩压<80mmHg。提供者主要是非麻醉学专业住院医师,他们在研究生培训的头三年接受了一个小时的教学和模型操作课程。
40 名患者,平均年龄 65(标准差 16)岁,被随机分配到 VL(n=20)或 DL(n=20)。60%的患者因呼吸衰竭接受气管插管,所有患者均接受了神经肌肉阻滞剂。40 名患者中有 25 名(63%)需要多次尝试,并且这种情况与技术无关(P=1.0)。VL 可改善声门可视化,85%的患者 Cormack-Lehane 分级为 1 级,而 DL 组只有 30%(P<0.001)。VL 的总插管时间为 221 秒(四分位距[IQR 103-291]),而 DL 为 156 秒[IQR 67-220](P=0.15)。VL 组气管插管期间的 SaO2(86%)中位数[IQR 75-93]低于 DL 组的 95%中位数[IQR 85-99](P=0.04)。
与 DL 相比,VL 可改善声门可视化;然而,这并没有转化为改善的临床结果。该试验在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册号 NCT00911755 下注册。