A comparison of supraglottic airway devices versus endotracheal intubation for use in rabbit anaesthesia

Sarah Daphne Foo
{"title":"A comparison of supraglottic airway devices versus endotracheal intubation for use in rabbit anaesthesia","authors":"Sarah Daphne Foo","doi":"10.18849/ve.v7i3.563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PICO question \nIn domestic rabbits undergoing anaesthesia, how does the use of supraglottic airway devices compare to endotracheal intubation for ease of use in achieving a patent airway and maintaining a stable anaesthesia? \n  \nClinical bottom line \nCategory of research question \nTreatment \nThe number and type of study designs reviewed \nFive papers were reviewed to answer this clinical question including four randomised controlled trials, one of which was a randomised crossover trial and one peer-reviewed conference proceeding \nStrength of evidence \nModerate \nOutcomes reported \nThere is evidence to support that supraglottic devices were easier and faster to insert than endotracheal tubes and were used effectively to achieve and maintain a patent airway and anaesthesia. They were however, more easily displaced and took up more space in the oral cavity. Evidence also supports endotracheal intubation can be used to effectively achieve a patent airway and maintain a stable anaesthesia however, can result in more damage to tracheal mucosa when attempted blindly and required higher doses of induction drugs to use \nConclusion \nBased on current available evidence, endotracheal intubation is an excellent option for maintaining a patent airway and anaesthesia in rabbit patients as it is a tried and tested method, however, can cause tracheal damage if conducted blindly. Supraglottic airways devices can be used as an alternative where endotracheal intubation is unsuccessful. They can also be used where speed of obtaining a patent airway is imperative such as in an emergency as they may be easier and faster to apply, especially in inexperienced practitioners without the necessary equipment for safe endotracheal intubation. Supraglottic devices are unsuitable for procedures that require access to the oral cavity and / or patient movement, due to the size and easier loss of seal during movement potentiating risk of aspiration. Both supraglottic devices and endotracheal intubation are superior to face masks which evidence shows have more leakage, dead space and increased risk of hypercapnia \n  \nHow to apply this evidence in practice \nThe application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. \nKnowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care. \n  \n","PeriodicalId":257905,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Evidence","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Evidence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18849/ve.v7i3.563","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

PICO question In domestic rabbits undergoing anaesthesia, how does the use of supraglottic airway devices compare to endotracheal intubation for ease of use in achieving a patent airway and maintaining a stable anaesthesia?   Clinical bottom line Category of research question Treatment The number and type of study designs reviewed Five papers were reviewed to answer this clinical question including four randomised controlled trials, one of which was a randomised crossover trial and one peer-reviewed conference proceeding Strength of evidence Moderate Outcomes reported There is evidence to support that supraglottic devices were easier and faster to insert than endotracheal tubes and were used effectively to achieve and maintain a patent airway and anaesthesia. They were however, more easily displaced and took up more space in the oral cavity. Evidence also supports endotracheal intubation can be used to effectively achieve a patent airway and maintain a stable anaesthesia however, can result in more damage to tracheal mucosa when attempted blindly and required higher doses of induction drugs to use Conclusion Based on current available evidence, endotracheal intubation is an excellent option for maintaining a patent airway and anaesthesia in rabbit patients as it is a tried and tested method, however, can cause tracheal damage if conducted blindly. Supraglottic airways devices can be used as an alternative where endotracheal intubation is unsuccessful. They can also be used where speed of obtaining a patent airway is imperative such as in an emergency as they may be easier and faster to apply, especially in inexperienced practitioners without the necessary equipment for safe endotracheal intubation. Supraglottic devices are unsuitable for procedures that require access to the oral cavity and / or patient movement, due to the size and easier loss of seal during movement potentiating risk of aspiration. Both supraglottic devices and endotracheal intubation are superior to face masks which evidence shows have more leakage, dead space and increased risk of hypercapnia   How to apply this evidence in practice The application of evidence into practice should take into account multiple factors, not limited to: individual clinical expertise, patient’s circumstances and owners’ values, country, location or clinic where you work, the individual case in front of you, the availability of therapies and resources. Knowledge Summaries are a resource to help reinforce or inform decision making. They do not override the responsibility or judgement of the practitioner to do what is best for the animal in their care.  
声门上气道装置与气管内插管用于兔麻醉的比较
在接受麻醉的家兔中,与气管插管相比,使用声门上气道装置在实现气道通畅和维持麻醉稳定方面的易用性如何?临床底线研究问题的类别治疗研究设计的数量和类型回顾了五篇论文来回答这个临床问题,包括四项随机对照试验,其中一项是随机交叉试验,一项是同行评议的会议程序证据强度中度结果报告有证据支持声门上装置比气管内管更容易和更快地插入,并且有效地用于实现和维持气道通畅和麻醉。然而,它们更容易移位,在口腔中占据更多的空间。证据也支持气管插管可以有效地实现气道通畅和维持麻醉稳定,然而,如果盲目尝试,可能会对气管粘膜造成更大的损伤,并且需要更高剂量的诱导药物。结论根据现有的证据,气管插管是维持兔患者气道通畅和麻醉的一个很好的选择,因为它是一种经过试验和测试的方法。盲目操作会造成气管损伤。声门上气道装置可作为气管内插管不成功的替代方法。它们也可用于迫切需要快速获得通气道的地方,例如在紧急情况下,因为它们可能更容易和更快地应用,特别是在没有必要设备进行安全气管插管的经验不足的从业人员中。声门上装置不适合需要进入口腔和/或患者运动的手术,因为在运动过程中,声门上装置的尺寸和更容易失去密封,增加了误吸的风险。声门上装置和气管插管均优于面罩,证据显示面罩有更多的漏气、死腔和高碳酸血症的风险增加。如何在实践中应用这一证据?证据在实践中的应用应考虑多种因素,不限于:个人的临床专业知识,病人的情况和业主的价值观,你工作的国家,地点或诊所,你面前的个案,治疗和资源的可用性。知识摘要是帮助加强或告知决策的资源。他们不会凌驾于从业者的责任或判断之上,去做对他们照顾的动物最好的事情。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信