From the Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Hospital de Manises, Valencia, Spain.
Research Group in Perioperative Medicine, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Anesth Analg. 2019 Jun;128(6):1264-1271. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000004102.
Tracheal intubation failure in patients with difficult airway is still not uncommon. While videolaryngoscopes such as the Glidescope offer better glottic vision due to an acute-angled blade, this advantage does not always lead to an increased success rate because successful insertion of the tube through the vocal cords may be the limiting factor. We hypothesize that combined use of Glidescope and fiberscope used only as a dynamic guide facilitates tracheal intubation compared to a conventional Glidescope technique with a preshaped nondynamic stylet.
One hundred sixty adult patients with predicted difficult airway were randomly assigned to a conventional Glidescope (standard Glidescope group) or a combined Glidescope + fiberscope group intubation. In the Glidescope + fiberscope group under direct vision from the Glidescope, tracheal intubation was performed using the fiberscope as a guide without using fiberoptic vision, while in the standard Glidescope group, a conventional stylet-guided intubation technique was performed. We evaluated the rate of tracheal intubation success at first attempt as the primary end point (Fisher exact test). The difference between groups in airway injury, time to successful intubation, and the need for an alternative technique was also evaluated.
First-attempt intubation success was higher in the Glidescope + fiberscope group than in the standard Glidescope group (91% vs 67%; P = .0012; fragility index, 8; absolute risk reduction, 24% [95% CI, 12%-36%]). Median time to successful tracheal intubation was shorter in the Glidescope + fiberscope group (50 vs 64 seconds; P = .035). Airway injury rate was lower in the Glidescope + fiberscope group than in the standard Glidescope group (1% vs 11%; P = .035; fragility index, 1; absolute risk reduction, 10% [95% CI, 3%-18%]). Alternative rescue technique requirements to achieve tracheal intubation were higher in the standard Glidescope group (24% vs 4%; P < .001; fragility index, 7).
The use of a dynamic, flexible guide during a Glidescope laryngoscopy in patients with a predicted difficult airway compared to a standard intubation technique improves first-attempt intubation success, decreases the incidence of airway injury and time to successful intubation, as well as the need of an alternative technique to succeed.
在困难气道患者中,气管插管失败仍然并不罕见。虽然视频喉镜,如 Glidescope 提供了更好的声门视图,因为它的叶片呈锐角,但这一优势并不总是导致更高的成功率,因为通过声门插入管可能是限制因素。我们假设,与使用预成型非动力管芯的常规 Glidescope 技术相比,联合使用 Glidescope 和纤维镜仅作为动态引导,可更方便地进行气管插管。
160 例预计存在困难气道的成年患者被随机分配至常规 Glidescope(标准 Glidescope 组)或联合 Glidescope +纤维镜组进行插管。在 Glidescope +纤维镜组中,在 Glidescope 的直视下,使用纤维镜作为引导进行气管插管,而不使用纤维光学,而在标准 Glidescope 组中,进行常规管芯引导的插管技术。我们将首次尝试气管插管的成功率作为主要终点(Fisher 确切检验)进行评估。还评估了两组之间气道损伤、插管成功时间和需要替代技术的差异。
Glidescope +纤维镜组的首次插管成功率高于标准 Glidescope 组(91%比 67%;P =.0012;脆弱指数,8;绝对风险降低率,24%[95%CI,12%-36%])。Glidescope +纤维镜组成功气管插管的中位时间更短(50 比 64 秒;P =.035)。Glidescope +纤维镜组的气道损伤发生率低于标准 Glidescope 组(1%比 11%;P =.035;脆弱指数,1;绝对风险降低率,10%[95%CI,3%-18%])。标准 Glidescope 组需要替代抢救技术来实现气管插管的比例更高(24%比 4%;P <.001;脆弱指数,7)。
与标准插管技术相比,在预测困难气道患者的 Glidescope 喉镜检查中使用动态、灵活的引导管可提高首次尝试插管的成功率,降低气道损伤和插管成功时间的发生率,以及替代技术成功的需要。