Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study.

IF 0.9 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Kemal Tolga Saracoglu, Mehmet Yilmaz, Ayse Zeynep Turan, Ayten Saracoglu, Alparslan Kus, Volkan Alparslan, Ozlem Deligoz, Zuhal Aykac, Osman Ekinci
{"title":"Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study.","authors":"Kemal Tolga Saracoglu,&nbsp;Mehmet Yilmaz,&nbsp;Ayse Zeynep Turan,&nbsp;Ayten Saracoglu,&nbsp;Alparslan Kus,&nbsp;Volkan Alparslan,&nbsp;Ozlem Deligoz,&nbsp;Zuhal Aykac,&nbsp;Osman Ekinci","doi":"10.14744/nci.2021.76402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Fourth National Audit Project revealed that severe airway complications occur in the frequency of 1/22,000. Various rescue techniques were recommended in difficult airway guidelines. This study aims to evaluate the rescue techniques following failed direct laryngoscopy and analyze the success rates and potential complications during difficult airway management.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a multicenter and prospective observational study carried out in four referral centers. Four academic university hospitals using fiberoptic bronchoscopy and videolaryngoscopy in their daily practice were included in the study. Patients undergoing general anesthesia with anticipated or unanticipated difficult intubation were enrolled. The preferred rescue technique and the attempts for both direct and indirect laryngoscopies were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At the mean age of 46.58±21.19 years, 92 patients were analyzed. The most common rescue technique was videolaryngoscopy following failed direct laryngoscopy. Glidescope was the most preferred videolaryngoscope. Anesthesia residents performed most of the first tracheal intubation attempts, whereas anesthesia specialists performed the second attempts at all centers. The experience of the first performer as a resident was significantly higher in the anticipated difficult airway group (4.0±5.5 years) (p=0.045). The number of attempts with the first rescue technique was 2.0±2.0 and 1.0±1.0 in the unanticipated difficult airway and anticipated difficult airway groups, respectively (p=0.004).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Videolaryngoscopy was a more commonly preferred technique for both anticipated and unanticipated difficult intubations. Glidescope was the most used rescue device in difficult intubations after failed direct laryngoscopy, with a high success rate.</p>","PeriodicalId":19164,"journal":{"name":"Northern Clinics of Istanbul","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/5c/8d/NCI-10-212.PMC10170384.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northern Clinics of Istanbul","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2021.76402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objective: The Fourth National Audit Project revealed that severe airway complications occur in the frequency of 1/22,000. Various rescue techniques were recommended in difficult airway guidelines. This study aims to evaluate the rescue techniques following failed direct laryngoscopy and analyze the success rates and potential complications during difficult airway management.

Methods: This was a multicenter and prospective observational study carried out in four referral centers. Four academic university hospitals using fiberoptic bronchoscopy and videolaryngoscopy in their daily practice were included in the study. Patients undergoing general anesthesia with anticipated or unanticipated difficult intubation were enrolled. The preferred rescue technique and the attempts for both direct and indirect laryngoscopies were recorded.

Results: At the mean age of 46.58±21.19 years, 92 patients were analyzed. The most common rescue technique was videolaryngoscopy following failed direct laryngoscopy. Glidescope was the most preferred videolaryngoscope. Anesthesia residents performed most of the first tracheal intubation attempts, whereas anesthesia specialists performed the second attempts at all centers. The experience of the first performer as a resident was significantly higher in the anticipated difficult airway group (4.0±5.5 years) (p=0.045). The number of attempts with the first rescue technique was 2.0±2.0 and 1.0±1.0 in the unanticipated difficult airway and anticipated difficult airway groups, respectively (p=0.004).

Conclusion: Videolaryngoscopy was a more commonly preferred technique for both anticipated and unanticipated difficult intubations. Glidescope was the most used rescue device in difficult intubations after failed direct laryngoscopy, with a high success rate.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

喉镜检查失败后抢救技术的评估:一项多中心前瞻性观察研究。
目的:第四次国家审计项目发现,发生严重气道并发症的频率为1/ 22000。在困难气道指南中推荐了各种救援技术。本研究旨在评估直接喉镜检查失败后的抢救技术,并分析困难气道管理的成功率和潜在并发症。方法:这是一项在四个转诊中心进行的多中心前瞻性观察研究。本研究包括四所大学附属医院在日常实践中使用纤维支气管镜和视频喉镜。患者接受全身麻醉,预期或非预期插管困难。记录了直接喉镜和间接喉镜的首选抢救技术和尝试情况。结果:92例患者平均年龄46.58±21.19岁。最常见的抢救技术是在直接喉镜检查失败后进行视频喉镜检查。滑翔镜是首选的视频喉镜。麻醉住院医师进行了大多数第一次气管插管尝试,而麻醉专家在所有中心进行了第二次气管插管尝试。预期气道困难组第一名住院医师的经验显著高于预期气道困难组(4.0±5.5年)(p=0.045)。未预期气道困难组和预期气道困难组首次抢救次数分别为2.0±2.0和1.0±1.0次(p=0.004)。结论:视频喉镜检查是一种更普遍的首选技术,无论是预期的和非预期的困难插管。滑梯镜是直接喉镜检查失败后插管困难时使用最多的抢救器械,成功率高。
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
Northern Clinics of Istanbul
Northern Clinics of Istanbul MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
48
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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