Ahmed Syed Moied, Doley Kashmiri, Athar Manazir, Raza Nadeem, Siddiqi Obaid Ahmad, Ali Shahna
Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College and Hospital, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Indian J Anaesth. 2017 Apr;61(4):338-343. doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_564_16.
In the recent past, many novel devices such as AirTraq and C-MAC video laryngoscope (VL) have been introduced in an attempt to reduce anaesthetic morbidity and mortality associated with difficult intubation. In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare C-MAC VL with a standard Macintosh blade and the AirTraq optical laryngoscope as a intubating devices with the patient's head in neutral position.
Sixty American Society of Anesthesiologist Physical Status I-II patients were randomly assigned to be intubated with C-MAC VL (Group CM; = 30) or AirTraq (Group AT; = 30) in the neutral position, with or without the application of optimization manoeuvres. The primary outcomes of this study were the success rate and the time taken to intubate. Glottic view, ease of tracheal intubation and haemodynamic responses were considered as secondary end points.
The incidence of successful intubation was similar in both the groups ( = 1.00). However, the time for intubation was significantly less with C-MAC VL (Group CM = 14.9 ± 12.89 s, Group AT = 26.3 ± 13.34 s; = 0.0014). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of ease of intubation and glottic view. However, the haemodynamic perturbations were much less with C-MAC VL.
We conclude that both the devices were similar in visualising larynx in the neutral position with similar success rates of intubation. However, the C-MAC VL was better with respect to intubation time and haemodynamic stability.
近年来,许多新型设备如AirTraq和C-MAC视频喉镜(VL)被引入,试图降低与困难插管相关的麻醉发病率和死亡率。在本研究中,我们旨在评估和比较C-MAC VL与标准麦氏喉镜叶片以及AirTraq光学喉镜作为在患者头部处于中立位时的插管设备。
60例美国麻醉医师协会身体状况I-II级的患者被随机分配,在中立位使用C-MAC VL(CM组;n = 30)或AirTraq(AT组;n = 30)进行插管,插管时应用或不应用优化操作。本研究的主要结局是成功率和插管所需时间。声门视野、气管插管的难易程度和血流动力学反应被视为次要终点。
两组的成功插管发生率相似(P = 1.00)。然而,C-MAC VL的插管时间显著更短(CM组 = 14.9 ± 12.89秒,AT组 = 26.3 ± 13.34秒;P = 0.0014)。两组在插管难易程度和声门视野方面无显著差异。然而,C-MAC VL引起的血流动力学波动要小得多。
我们得出结论,两种设备在使处于中立位的喉部可视化方面相似,插管成功率相近。然而,C-MAC VL在插管时间和血流动力学稳定性方面表现更佳。