Department of Pediatric Anesthesia, Cleveland Clinic Children's Hospital, P21, 9500 Euclid Ave., Cleveland, OH 44195, USA.
Can J Anaesth. 2013 May;60(5):450-7. doi: 10.1007/s12630-013-9906-x. Epub 2013 Feb 23.
The GlideScope(®) video laryngoscope has a 60° angled blade and the blade of the Truview PCD™ video laryngoscope has an optical lens that provides a 46° refraction of the viewing angle. Despite successful results using the GlideScope in adults, few studies have been published regarding its use in pediatric patients. We therefore tested our joint primary hypothesis that the GlideScope and the Truview PCD video laryngoscopes provide superior visualization to direct laryngoscopy and are non-inferior regarding time to intubation.
One hundred thirty-four patients (neonate to ten years of age, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) scheduled for general surgical procedures were randomized to tracheal intubation using the Truview PCD or GlideScope video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscopy (Macintosh blade). The laryngoscopic view was scored using the Cormack-Lehane scale. Time to intubation (defined as the time from the moment the device entered the patient's mouth until end-tidal CO2 was detected) and the number of attempts were recorded.
The Cormack-Lehane views attained using the GlideScope (P > 0.99) and Truview PCD (P = 0.18) were not superior to the views attained with direct laryngoscopy. Furthermore, the view attained using the GlideScope was significantly worse than that attained using direct laryngoscopy (P < 0.001). Fewer patients showed Cormack-Lehane grade I views with the GlideScope than with the Truview PCD (14% vs 82%, respectively; 95% confidence interval [CI] -91% to -46%). The observed median [Q1, Q3] times to intubation were: 39 [31, 59] sec, 44 [28, 62] sec, and 23 [21, 28] sec with the GlideScope, Truview PCD, and direct laryngoscopy, respectively, with median differences of 14 sec (95% CI 7 to 26, GlideScope - direct laryngoscopy) and 17 sec (95% CI 6 to 28, Truview PCD - direct laryngoscopy).
The Cormack-Lehane views attained using the GlideScope and the Truview PCD video laryngoscopes were not superior to views attained using direct laryngoscopy. Visualization with the GlideScope was significantly worse than with direct laryngoscopy. Use of the GlideScope and Truview PCD systems should be restricted to patients with specific indications.
GlideScope(®)视频喉镜的叶片呈 60°角,而 Truview PCD™视频喉镜的叶片有一个光学镜头,可将视角折射 46°。尽管在成人中使用 GlideScope 取得了成功的结果,但很少有研究报道其在儿科患者中的应用。因此,我们验证了我们的联合主要假设,即 GlideScope 和 Truview PCD 视频喉镜的可视性优于直接喉镜,并且在插管时间方面不劣于直接喉镜。
134 名患者(新生儿至十岁,美国麻醉医师协会身体状况 I-III)计划接受普通外科手术,随机分为使用 Truview PCD 或 GlideScope 视频喉镜或直接喉镜(Macintosh 叶片)进行气管插管。使用 Cormack-Lehane 分级评估喉镜视野。记录插管时间(定义为从器械进入患者口腔到检测到呼气末 CO2 的时间)和尝试次数。
GlideScope(P>0.99)和 Truview PCD(P=0.18)获得的 Cormack-Lehane 视野与直接喉镜获得的视野无明显优势。此外,GlideScope 获得的视野明显劣于直接喉镜(P<0.001)。使用 GlideScope 的患者中 Cormack-Lehane 分级 I 视图的比例明显低于使用 Truview PCD 的患者(分别为 14%和 82%;95%置信区间[CI]-91%至-46%)。观察到的插管中位[Q1,Q3]时间分别为:GlideScope 为 39[31,59]s,Truview PCD 为 44[28,62]s,直接喉镜为 23[21,28]s,GlideScope 与直接喉镜相比差异为 14s(95%CI 7 至 26,GlideScope-直接喉镜)和 17s(95%CI 6 至 28,Truview PCD-直接喉镜)。
GlideScope 和 Truview PCD 视频喉镜获得的 Cormack-Lehane 视野与直接喉镜获得的视野无明显优势。GlideScope 的可视性明显劣于直接喉镜。应将 GlideScope 和 Truview PCD 系统的使用限于具有特定适应证的患者。