Use of combined laryngo-bronchoscopy intubation approach in a simulated difficult airway scenario with cervical stabilization

IF 1 4区 医学 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Signa Vitae Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.22514/sv.2023.073
{"title":"Use of combined laryngo-bronchoscopy intubation approach in a simulated difficult airway scenario with cervical stabilization","authors":"","doi":"10.22514/sv.2023.073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The occurrence of unexpected difficult airway management (DAM) during endotracheal intubation (ETI) attempts represents a life-threatening scenario. The management of such challenges may improve with training in simulated DAM scenarios. Moreover, simulation allows investigation at the potential value of new devices and techniques for DAM. The combined use of laryngoscopy with fiberoptic bronchoscope (CLBI) has been proposed in this regard, but its performance by novices facing DAM remain unexplored. We performed a randomized crossover simulation study evaluating the performance of ninety-six anesthesiology residents during ETI with four approaches: direct laryngoscopy (DL), Glidescope®, McGrath® and CLBI. Increased difficulty was produced by placement of a cervical collar. Residents had maximum of 3 attempts per device/technique (up to 60 seconds per attempt). The main outcomes were success rate (SR) and corrected time-to-intubation (cTTI, with 60 seconds added for each failed attempt). Subgroup analyses were performed separating residents according to their experience (junior, n = 60; senior, n = 36).The CLBI had significantly lower SR at both 1st and 3rd attempt (31% and 64%, respectively) as compared to DL (93% and 98%), Glidescope® (70% and 86%) and McGrath® (58% and 84%), with all p < 0.001. Moreover, CLBI had significantly longer cTTI (158.5 seconds; (54.3; 180)) than other devices: Glidescope® (37.6 seconds; (24.7; 88.2)), McGrath® (39.3 seconds; (20.6; 105.1)), and DL (19 seconds; (15.4; 27.2)), all p < 0.002. CLBI and McGrath® were the only approaches performing better in senior as compared to junior residents. In a DAM simulated setting, anesthesiology residents had lower SR and longer cTTI with the CLBI as compared to direct and video-laryngoscopy.","PeriodicalId":49522,"journal":{"name":"Signa Vitae","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Signa Vitae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22514/sv.2023.073","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The occurrence of unexpected difficult airway management (DAM) during endotracheal intubation (ETI) attempts represents a life-threatening scenario. The management of such challenges may improve with training in simulated DAM scenarios. Moreover, simulation allows investigation at the potential value of new devices and techniques for DAM. The combined use of laryngoscopy with fiberoptic bronchoscope (CLBI) has been proposed in this regard, but its performance by novices facing DAM remain unexplored. We performed a randomized crossover simulation study evaluating the performance of ninety-six anesthesiology residents during ETI with four approaches: direct laryngoscopy (DL), Glidescope®, McGrath® and CLBI. Increased difficulty was produced by placement of a cervical collar. Residents had maximum of 3 attempts per device/technique (up to 60 seconds per attempt). The main outcomes were success rate (SR) and corrected time-to-intubation (cTTI, with 60 seconds added for each failed attempt). Subgroup analyses were performed separating residents according to their experience (junior, n = 60; senior, n = 36).The CLBI had significantly lower SR at both 1st and 3rd attempt (31% and 64%, respectively) as compared to DL (93% and 98%), Glidescope® (70% and 86%) and McGrath® (58% and 84%), with all p < 0.001. Moreover, CLBI had significantly longer cTTI (158.5 seconds; (54.3; 180)) than other devices: Glidescope® (37.6 seconds; (24.7; 88.2)), McGrath® (39.3 seconds; (20.6; 105.1)), and DL (19 seconds; (15.4; 27.2)), all p < 0.002. CLBI and McGrath® were the only approaches performing better in senior as compared to junior residents. In a DAM simulated setting, anesthesiology residents had lower SR and longer cTTI with the CLBI as compared to direct and video-laryngoscopy.
喉-支气管镜联合插管入路在模拟困难气道情况下颈椎稳定的应用
在气管插管(ETI)尝试期间发生意外的气道管理困难(DAM)代表了危及生命的情况。对这些挑战的管理可以通过模拟DAM情景的训练来改进。此外,模拟允许对DAM的新设备和技术的潜在价值进行调查。在这方面,已经提出了喉镜和纤维支气管镜(CLBI)的联合使用,但其在面临DAM的新手中的表现仍未得到探讨。我们进行了一项随机交叉模拟研究,评估了96名麻醉住院医师在ETI期间的表现,采用了四种方法:直接喉镜检查(DL)、Glidescope®、McGrath®和CLBI。置入颈圈会增加困难。每个设备/技术最多有3次尝试(每次尝试最多60秒)。主要结果为成功率(SR)和校正插管时间(cTTI,每失败一次增加60秒)。根据住院医师的经验进行亚组分析(初级,n = 60;高级,n = 36)。与DL(93%和98%),Glidescope®(70%和86%)和McGrath®(58%和84%)相比,CLBI在第一次和第三次尝试时的SR(分别为31%和64%)显着降低,所有p <0.001. 此外,CLBI的cTTI(158.5秒;(54.3;180))明显长于Glidescope®(37.6秒;(24.7;88.2))、McGrath®(39.3秒;(20.6;105.1))和DL(19秒;(15.4;27.2)),均为p <0.002. 与初级住院医师相比,CLBI和McGrath®是唯一在老年住院医师中表现更好的方法。在DAM模拟环境中,与直接喉镜检查和视频喉镜检查相比,麻醉科住院医生使用CLBI的SR较低,cTTI较长。
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
Signa Vitae
Signa Vitae 医学-急救医学
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
0
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Signa Vitae is a completely open-access,peer-reviewed journal dedicate to deliver the leading edge research in anaesthesia, intensive care and emergency medicine to publics. The journal’s intention is to be practice-oriented, so we focus on the clinical practice and fundamental understanding of adult, pediatric and neonatal intensive care, as well as anesthesia and emergency medicine. Although Signa Vitae is primarily a clinical journal, we welcome submissions of basic science papers if the authors can demonstrate their clinical relevance. The Signa Vitae journal encourages scientists and academicians all around the world to share their original writings in the form of original research, review, mini-review, systematic review, short communication, case report, letter to the editor, commentary, rapid report, news and views, as well as meeting report. Full texts of all published articles, can be downloaded for free from our web site.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信