Suppr超能文献

一项比较三种用作柔性支气管镜引导经气管插管的声门上气道装置的随机对照试验。

A randomized controlled trial comparing three supraglottic airway devices used as a conduit to facilitate tracheal intubation with flexible bronchoscopy.

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et services sociaux de l'Estrie-Centre hospitalier universitaire de Sherbrooke (CIUSSS de l'Estrie-CHUS), Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medecine, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Centre hospitalier universitaire de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.

出版信息

Can J Anaesth. 2023 May;70(5):851-860. doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02444-z. Epub 2023 Apr 13.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Once difficult ventilation and intubation are declared, guidelines suggest the use of a supraglottic airway (SGA) as a rescue device to ventilate and, if oxygenation is restored, subsequently as an intubation conduit. Nevertheless, few trials have formally studied recent SGA devices in patients. Our objective was to compare the efficacy of three second-generation SGA devices as conduits for bronchoscopy-guided endotracheal intubation.

METHODS

In this prospective, single-blinded three-arm randomized controlled trial, patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status of I-III undergoing general anesthesia were randomized to bronchoscopy-guided endotracheal intubation using AuraGain™, Air-Q® Blocker, or i-gel® devices. We excluded patients with contraindications to an SGA or drugs and who were pregnant or had a neck, spine, or respiratory anomaly. The primary outcome was intubation time, measured from SGA circuit disconnection to CO measurement. Secondary outcomes included ease, time, and success of SGA insertion; success of intubation on first attempt; overall intubation success; number of attempts to intubate; ease of intubation; and ease of SGA removals.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty patients were enrolled from March 2017 to January 2018. Median intubation times were similar across the three groups (Air-Q Blocker, 44 sec; AuraGain, 45 sec; i-gel, 36 sec; P = 0.08). The i-gel was faster to insert (i-gel: 10 sec; Air-Q Blocker, 16 sec; AuraGain, 16 sec; P < 0.001) and easier to insert (Air-Q Blocker vs i-gel, P = 0.001; AuraGain vs i-gel, P = 0.002). Success of SGA insertion, success of intubation, and number of attempts were similar. The Air-Q Blocker was easier to remove than the i-gel (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

All three second-generation SGA devices performed similarly regarding intubation. Despite minor benefits of the i-gel, clinicians should select their SGA based on clinical experience.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02975466); registered on 29 November 2016.

摘要

目的

一旦宣布困难通气和插管,指南建议使用声门上气道(SGA)作为救援设备进行通气,并且如果氧合恢复,则随后作为插管导管。然而,很少有试验正式研究最近的 SGA 设备在患者中的应用。我们的目的是比较三种第二代 SGA 设备作为支气管镜引导下经气管插管的导管的效果。

方法

在这项前瞻性、单盲、三臂随机对照试验中,接受全身麻醉的美国麻醉医师协会身体状况 I-III 级的患者被随机分配至使用 AuraGain™、Air-Q® Blocker 或 i-gel® 设备进行支气管镜引导下经气管插管。我们排除了有 SGA 禁忌证或药物禁忌证、孕妇或有颈部、脊柱或呼吸异常的患者。主要结局是从 SGA 回路断开到 CO 测量的插管时间。次要结局包括 SGA 插入的难易程度、时间和成功率;首次尝试插管的成功率;整体插管成功率;插管尝试次数;插管的难易程度;以及 SGA 移除的难易程度。

结果

2017 年 3 月至 2018 年 1 月期间共纳入 150 名患者。三组的中位插管时间相似(Air-Q Blocker,44 秒;AuraGain,45 秒;i-gel,36 秒;P = 0.08)。i-gel 插入更快(i-gel:10 秒;Air-Q Blocker,16 秒;AuraGain,16 秒;P < 0.001)且更容易插入(Air-Q Blocker 与 i-gel,P = 0.001;AuraGain 与 i-gel,P = 0.002)。SGA 插入成功率、插管成功率和尝试次数相似。Air-Q Blocker 比 i-gel 更容易移除(P < 0.001)。

结论

三种第二代 SGA 设备在插管方面表现相似。尽管 i-gel 有一些优势,但临床医生应根据临床经验选择他们的 SGA。

研究注册

ClinicalTrials.gov(NCT02975466);注册于 2016 年 11 月 29 日。

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