Suppr超能文献

在全身麻醉下接受手术的新生儿和婴儿中,C-MAC Miller 视频喉镜与 McGrath MAC size "1" 视频喉镜的比较疗效:一项前瞻性随机对照试验。

Comparative efficacy of C-MAC Miller videolaryngoscope versus McGrath MAC size "1" videolaryngoscope in neonates and infants undergoing surgical procedures under general anesthesia: A prospective randomized controlled trial.

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine and Critical care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India.

Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, VMMC and Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, 110029, India.

出版信息

Paediatr Anaesth. 2021 Oct;31(10):1089-1096. doi: 10.1111/pan.14244. Epub 2021 Jul 16.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Various anatomical and physiological factors make intubation in infants challenging. C-MAC videolaryngoscope shows better results as compared to the conventional direct laryngoscopy for intubation in infants. McGrath MAC size-1 with a disposable Macintosh type blade has recently been introduced for use in infants and has not been formally evaluated in this population.

AIMS

This study aims to evaluate the intubation characteristics of C-MAC Miller and McGrath MAC in neonates and infants with the primary objective to compare the time with the two devices.

METHODS

After informed consent from the parents, 140 neonates and infants scheduled for surgical procedures were randomized to undergo intubation with either C-MAC Miller or McGrath MAC after standard general anesthesia. The two devices were compared in terms of total intubation time, Percent of Glottic Opening score, Cormack Lehane grades, time to glottis view, intubation difficulty score, overall success rate, first attempt success rate, and complications.

RESULTS

The median glottic view time (6 s [4-9] vs. 6 s [4-9]; p = .40) and intubation time (27 s [25.5-28] vs. 27 s [24.5-29.5]; p = .87) were similar. The mean difference (95% CI) in time to tracheal intubation and time to glottic view was 0.49 s [-3.1 to 2.1] and -1.7 s [-3.8 to 0.47], respectively. However, the Percent of Glottic Opening score, Cormack Lehane grades, and subjective intubation difficulty were significantly better with C-MAC. The first attempt success rates, overall success rates (100% vs. 97.5%), and intubation difficulty scores were comparable. There were two failed intubations with McGrath which were successfully intubated with C-MAC.

CONCLUSION

The C-MAC Miller blade showed similar intubation timings, success rates, and intubation difficulty score as compared to McGrath MAC in neonates and infants, though the former provided superior glottic views. Both the videolaryngoscopes may be safely used in infants and neonates for routine intubation scenarios.

摘要

背景

各种解剖和生理因素使得婴儿的插管具有挑战性。C-MAC 视频喉镜在婴儿插管方面的效果优于传统的直接喉镜。最近推出了用于婴儿的 McGrath MAC 尺寸 1 型,带有一次性 Macintosh 型刀片,但尚未在该人群中进行正式评估。

目的

本研究旨在评估 C-MAC Miller 和 McGrath MAC 在新生儿和婴儿中的插管特性,主要目的是比较两种设备的时间。

方法

在获得家长知情同意后,140 名计划接受手术的新生儿和婴儿被随机分为 C-MAC Miller 或 McGrath MAC 组,在标准全身麻醉下进行插管。在总插管时间、声门显露评分、Cormack-Lehane 分级、声门显露时间、插管难度评分、总体成功率、首次尝试成功率和并发症方面比较两种设备。

结果

中位声门显露时间(6 秒 [4-9] 与 6 秒 [4-9];p=0.40)和插管时间(27 秒 [25.5-28] 与 27 秒 [24.5-29.5];p=0.87)相似。气管插管时间和声门显露时间的平均差异(95%CI)分别为 0.49 秒[-3.1 至 2.1]和-1.7 秒[-3.8 至 0.47]。然而,C-MAC 的声门显露评分、Cormack-Lehane 分级和主观插管难度明显更好。首次尝试成功率和总体成功率(100%与 97.5%)和插管难度评分相当。有两例 McGrath 插管失败,改用 C-MAC 后成功插管。

结论

在新生儿和婴儿中,C-MAC Miller 叶片与 McGrath MAC 相比,插管时间、成功率和插管难度评分相似,但前者提供了更好的声门视野。两种视频喉镜均可安全用于婴儿和新生儿的常规插管场景。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验