Suppr超能文献

GlideScope® 可视喉镜与 C-MAC®(D) 可视喉镜和 Macintosh 喉镜用于预测气道正常的患者双腔气管插管的随机、对照、前瞻性试验。

GlideScope® versus C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for double lumen endotracheal intubation in patients with predicted normal airways: a randomized, controlled, prospective trial.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Renji Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiaotong University, Shanghai, 200001, China.

出版信息

BMC Anesthesiol. 2020 May 20;20(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s12871-020-01012-y.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The double lumen endotracheal tube (DLT) is the most widely-used device for single lung ventilation in current thoracic anesthesia practice. In recent years, the routine application of the videolaryngoscope for single lumen endotracheal intubation has increased; nevertheless there are few studies of the use of the videolaryngoscope for DLT. We wondered whether there were benefits to using the videolaryngoscope for DLT placement in patients with predicted normal airways. Therefore, this study was designed to compare the performances of the GlideScope®, the C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscope and the Macintosh laryngoscope in DLT intubation.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled, prospective study. We randomly allocated 90 adult patients with predicted normal airways into three groups. All patients underwent routine anesthesia using different laryngoscopes according to group allocation. We compared DLT insertion times, first-pass success rates, numerical rating scales (NRS) of DLT delivery and DLT insertion, Cormack-Lehane degrees (C/L), hemodynamic changes and incidences of intubation complications. All outcomes were analyzed using SPSS13.0.

RESULTS

Compared with the GlideScope, the Macintosh gave shorter times for DLT insertion (median: 96 (IQR: 51 [min-max: 62-376] s vs 73 (26 [48-419] s, p = 0.003); however, there was no difference between the Macintosh and C-MAC(D) (p = 0.610). The Macintosh had a significantly higher successful first attempt rate than did the GlideScope or C-MAC(D) (p = 0.001, p = 0.028, respectively). NRS of DLT delivery and insertion were significantly lower in the Macintosh than in the others (p < 0.001). However, the C/L degree in the Macintosh was significantly higher than in the others (p < 0.001). The incidences of oral bleeding, hoarseness, sore throat and dental trauma were low in all groups (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in DLT misplacement, fiberoptic time or hemodynamic changes among the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the GlideScope® and C-MAC®(D) videolaryngoscopes may not be recommended as the first choice for routine DLT intubation in patients with predicted normal airways.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was prospectively registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (no. ChiCTR1900025718); principal investigator: Z.L.H.; date of registration: September 6, 2019.

摘要

背景

双腔气管导管(DLT)是目前胸科麻醉实践中用于单肺通气的最广泛应用的装置。近年来,视频喉镜常规用于单腔气管插管的应用有所增加;然而,关于视频喉镜用于 DLT 的使用的研究很少。我们想知道对于预测气道正常的患者,使用视频喉镜放置 DLT 是否有益。因此,本研究旨在比较 GlideScope®、C-MAC®(D)视频喉镜和 Macintosh 喉镜在 DLT 插管中的性能。

方法

这是一项随机、对照、前瞻性研究。我们将 90 名预测气道正常的成年患者随机分为三组。所有患者根据分组接受不同喉镜的常规麻醉。我们比较了 DLT 插入时间、首次尝试成功率、DLT 输送和插入的数字评分量表(NRS)、Cormack-Lehane 程度(C/L)、血流动力学变化和插管并发症的发生率。所有结果均使用 SPSS13.0 进行分析。

结果

与 GlideScope 相比,Macintosh 插入 DLT 的时间更短(中位数:96(IQR:51[最小-最大:62-376]s 与 73(26[48-419]s,p=0.003);然而,Macintosh 与 C-MAC(D) 之间没有差异(p=0.610)。Macintosh 的首次尝试成功率明显高于 GlideScope 或 C-MAC(D)(p=0.001,p=0.028)。DLT 输送和插入的 NRS 在 Macintosh 中明显低于其他喉镜(p<0.001)。然而,Macintosh 的 C/L 程度明显高于其他喉镜(p<0.001)。所有组的口腔出血、声音嘶哑、喉咙痛和牙齿外伤的发生率均较低(p>0.05)。各组之间 DLT 错位、纤维光学时间或血流动力学变化无显著差异。

结论

与 Macintosh 喉镜相比,GlideScope®和 C-MAC®(D)视频喉镜可能不推荐作为预测气道正常患者常规 DLT 插管的首选方法。

试验注册

该研究在中国临床试验注册中心(注册号:ChiCTR1900025718)进行了前瞻性注册;主要研究者:Z.L.H.;注册日期:2019 年 9 月 6 日。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/517c/7238523/0a2ff8fd157a/12871_2020_1012_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验