Neuromuscular Block and Video Laryngoscope to Facilitate Intubation-A Survey of Current Practice in Denmark and Sweden.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Åse Lodenius, Louise Holland-Bill, Emil Ørskov Ipsen, Maria Cronhjort, Arash Afshari, Matias Vested, Andreas Creutzburg, Lars Hyldborg Lundstrøm, Helene Korvenius Nedergaard, Anders Kehlet Nørskov
{"title":"Neuromuscular Block and Video Laryngoscope to Facilitate Intubation-A Survey of Current Practice in Denmark and Sweden.","authors":"Åse Lodenius, Louise Holland-Bill, Emil Ørskov Ipsen, Maria Cronhjort, Arash Afshari, Matias Vested, Andreas Creutzburg, Lars Hyldborg Lundstrøm, Helene Korvenius Nedergaard, Anders Kehlet Nørskov","doi":"10.1111/aas.70200","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) provide optimal conditions for tracheal intubation. A high dose of opioid can be used as an alternative but may give suboptimal conditions for intubation. The use of a video laryngoscope for intubation might eliminate this potential difference.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey examining clinical practice regarding tracheal intubation with and without NMBA and use of video laryngoscopes was conducted in Sweden and Denmark.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>1771 out of 3181 (56%) of invited anaesthetists responded. Overall, 1365/1771 (77%) preferred using NMBAs for non-acute tracheal intubation with a considerably higher NMBA preference in Sweden 1011/1073 (94%) than in Denmark 354/700 (51%). A high proportion of Danish anaesthetists 327/700 (47%) compared to 40/1071 (4%) of Swedish anaesthetists reported primarily using opioids without NMBA. Remifentanil was the preferred opioid (1158/1361 (85%)) for intubation without NMBA. The reasons for using NMBA were improved intubating conditions (948/1771 (54%)), departmental tradition (285/1771 (16%)), adherence to local guidelines (264/1771 (15%)), and adherence to national/international guidelines (143/1771 (8%)). Video laryngoscopes were present in every operating theatre for 349/700 (50%) of Danish anaesthetists and 131/1071 (12%) of Swedish anaesthetists. Video laryngoscopes were easily accessible outside the operating room for 350/700 (50%) of Danish anaesthetists and 940/1071 (88%) of Swedish anaesthetists.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>NMBA use remains the standard for non-acute tracheal intubation. However, a substantial number of anaesthetists regularly employ a NMBA-free approach facilitated by high-potency opioids and video laryngoscopy, particularly in Denmark. These findings emphasise the need for further research and subsequently updated evidence-based guidance to support safe and effective intubation practices.</p><p><strong>Editorial comment: </strong>This study, reporting a survey of anesthesia practitioners in Sweden and Denmark assessed preferences concerning how the respondents would manage a series of case scenarios concerning anesthetic drug choices for facilitation of intubation and employment of video laryngoscopy. Quite a bit of variation for preferences is presented by the responses concerning neuromuscular blockade or not to facilitate intubation.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":"70 4","pages":"e70200"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12983051/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70200","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) provide optimal conditions for tracheal intubation. A high dose of opioid can be used as an alternative but may give suboptimal conditions for intubation. The use of a video laryngoscope for intubation might eliminate this potential difference.

Methods: A survey examining clinical practice regarding tracheal intubation with and without NMBA and use of video laryngoscopes was conducted in Sweden and Denmark.

Results: 1771 out of 3181 (56%) of invited anaesthetists responded. Overall, 1365/1771 (77%) preferred using NMBAs for non-acute tracheal intubation with a considerably higher NMBA preference in Sweden 1011/1073 (94%) than in Denmark 354/700 (51%). A high proportion of Danish anaesthetists 327/700 (47%) compared to 40/1071 (4%) of Swedish anaesthetists reported primarily using opioids without NMBA. Remifentanil was the preferred opioid (1158/1361 (85%)) for intubation without NMBA. The reasons for using NMBA were improved intubating conditions (948/1771 (54%)), departmental tradition (285/1771 (16%)), adherence to local guidelines (264/1771 (15%)), and adherence to national/international guidelines (143/1771 (8%)). Video laryngoscopes were present in every operating theatre for 349/700 (50%) of Danish anaesthetists and 131/1071 (12%) of Swedish anaesthetists. Video laryngoscopes were easily accessible outside the operating room for 350/700 (50%) of Danish anaesthetists and 940/1071 (88%) of Swedish anaesthetists.

Conclusions: NMBA use remains the standard for non-acute tracheal intubation. However, a substantial number of anaesthetists regularly employ a NMBA-free approach facilitated by high-potency opioids and video laryngoscopy, particularly in Denmark. These findings emphasise the need for further research and subsequently updated evidence-based guidance to support safe and effective intubation practices.

Editorial comment: This study, reporting a survey of anesthesia practitioners in Sweden and Denmark assessed preferences concerning how the respondents would manage a series of case scenarios concerning anesthetic drug choices for facilitation of intubation and employment of video laryngoscopy. Quite a bit of variation for preferences is presented by the responses concerning neuromuscular blockade or not to facilitate intubation.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

神经肌肉阻滞和视频喉镜方便插管——丹麦和瑞典目前的实践调查。
背景:神经肌肉阻断剂(NMBA)为气管插管提供了最佳条件。高剂量阿片类药物可作为一种替代方法,但可能给插管提供不理想的条件。使用视频喉镜插管可以消除这种潜在的差异。方法:对瑞典和丹麦两国的临床情况进行调查,分析有无NMBA气管插管和使用视频喉镜的情况。结果:3181名受邀麻醉师中有1771名(56%)回复。总体而言,1365/1771(77%)更倾向于使用NMBA进行非急性气管插管,瑞典1011/1073(94%)的NMBA偏好明显高于丹麦354/700(51%)。丹麦麻醉师327/700(47%),瑞典麻醉师40/1071(4%)报告主要使用无NMBA的阿片类药物。对于非NMBA插管,瑞芬太尼是首选阿片类药物(1158/1361(85%))。采用NMBA的原因是改善插管条件(948/1771)(54%)、科室传统(285/1771)(16%)、遵守地方指南(264/1771)(15%)和遵守国家/国际指南(143/1771)(8%)。每间手术室有349/700(50%)的丹麦麻醉师和131/1071(12%)的瑞典麻醉师使用视频喉镜。350/700(50%)的丹麦麻醉师和940/1071(88%)的瑞典麻醉师可以方便地在手术室外获得视频喉镜。结论:NMBA的使用仍然是非急性气管插管的标准。然而,相当数量的麻醉师经常采用无nmba的方法,通过高效阿片类药物和视频喉镜来促进,特别是在丹麦。这些发现强调需要进一步研究和随后更新的循证指南,以支持安全有效的插管实践。编辑评论:这项研究报告了一项对瑞典和丹麦麻醉从业人员的调查,评估了受访者如何处理一系列关于麻醉药物选择的案例,以促进插管和使用视频喉镜。关于神经肌肉阻滞或不方便插管的反应呈现出相当多的偏好变化。
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
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
×
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
小红书