A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Gómez-Ríos,Manuel Ángel
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Pinegger,Stephan, Mantilla,María de Carrillo, Vizcaino,Lucia, Barreto-Calvo,Purísima, Paech,Michael J., Gómez-Ríos,David, López-Calviño,Beatriz
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942016000300289
Resumo: ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: Several devices can aid nasotracheal intubation when managing difficult airways. The McGrath MAC and Airtraq NT were compared with a Macintosh laryngoscope when studying the performance of anaesthetists with different levels of experience, in a manikin model of easy or difficult airway scenarios. METHODS: Sixty-three anaesthetists were recruited into a randomised trial in which each performed nasotracheal intubation with all laryngoscopes, in both scenarios. The main endpoint was intubation time. Additional endpoints included laryngoscopic view, intubation success, number of optimisation manoeuvres, audible dental clicks and the force applied to the upper airway. RESULTS: Intubation time was significantly shorter using the McGrath MAC in both scenarios and using the Airtraq in the difficult scenario, when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Both devices gave more Cormack and Lehane grade 1 or 2 views than the Macintosh in the difficult scenario (p < 0.001). The McGrath MAC had the best first-attempt success rate (98.4% vs. 96.8% and 95.8%, p < 0.001 for the Airtraq NT and Macintosh laryngoscopes respectively). The number of optimisation manoeuvres, audible dental clicks and subjective assessment of the degree of force applied were significantly lower for indirect laryngoscopes versus the Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In a manikin, the Airtraq and the McGrath laryngoscopes appeared superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope when dealing with simulated airway scenarios. Both devices were associated with better views, intubation times and rates of success, especially in a simulated "difficult airway". Overall satisfaction was highest with the McGrath laryngoscope. Similar clinical studies are needed.
id SBA-1_d6f4604c89e3adeb14be9de56d7c137a
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0034-70942016000300289
network_acronym_str SBA-1
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikinIntubationLaryngoscopesManikinRandomised controlled trialABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: Several devices can aid nasotracheal intubation when managing difficult airways. The McGrath MAC and Airtraq NT were compared with a Macintosh laryngoscope when studying the performance of anaesthetists with different levels of experience, in a manikin model of easy or difficult airway scenarios. METHODS: Sixty-three anaesthetists were recruited into a randomised trial in which each performed nasotracheal intubation with all laryngoscopes, in both scenarios. The main endpoint was intubation time. Additional endpoints included laryngoscopic view, intubation success, number of optimisation manoeuvres, audible dental clicks and the force applied to the upper airway. RESULTS: Intubation time was significantly shorter using the McGrath MAC in both scenarios and using the Airtraq in the difficult scenario, when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Both devices gave more Cormack and Lehane grade 1 or 2 views than the Macintosh in the difficult scenario (p < 0.001). The McGrath MAC had the best first-attempt success rate (98.4% vs. 96.8% and 95.8%, p < 0.001 for the Airtraq NT and Macintosh laryngoscopes respectively). The number of optimisation manoeuvres, audible dental clicks and subjective assessment of the degree of force applied were significantly lower for indirect laryngoscopes versus the Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In a manikin, the Airtraq and the McGrath laryngoscopes appeared superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope when dealing with simulated airway scenarios. Both devices were associated with better views, intubation times and rates of success, especially in a simulated "difficult airway". Overall satisfaction was highest with the McGrath laryngoscope. Similar clinical studies are needed.Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia2016-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942016000300289Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.66 n.3 2016reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)instacron:SBA10.1016/j.bjane.2014.10.009info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGómez-Ríos,Manuel ÁngelPinegger,StephanMantilla,María de CarrilloVizcaino,LuciaBarreto-Calvo,PurísimaPaech,Michael J.Gómez-Ríos,DavidLópez-Calviño,Beatrizeng2016-05-30T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-70942016000300289Revistahttps://www.sbahq.org/revista/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sba2000@openlink.com.br1806-907X0034-7094opendoar:2016-05-30T00:00Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin
title A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin
spellingShingle A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin
Gómez-Ríos,Manuel Ángel
Intubation
Laryngoscopes
Manikin
Randomised controlled trial
title_short A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin
title_full A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin
title_fullStr A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin
title_full_unstemmed A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin
title_sort A randomised crossover trial comparing the Airtraq ® NT, McGrath ® MAC and Macintosh laryngoscopes for nasotracheal intubation of simulated easy and difficult airways in a manikin
author Gómez-Ríos,Manuel Ángel
author_facet Gómez-Ríos,Manuel Ángel
Pinegger,Stephan
Mantilla,María de Carrillo
Vizcaino,Lucia
Barreto-Calvo,Purísima
Paech,Michael J.
Gómez-Ríos,David
López-Calviño,Beatriz
author_role author
author2 Pinegger,Stephan
Mantilla,María de Carrillo
Vizcaino,Lucia
Barreto-Calvo,Purísima
Paech,Michael J.
Gómez-Ríos,David
López-Calviño,Beatriz
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Gómez-Ríos,Manuel Ángel
Pinegger,Stephan
Mantilla,María de Carrillo
Vizcaino,Lucia
Barreto-Calvo,Purísima
Paech,Michael J.
Gómez-Ríos,David
López-Calviño,Beatriz
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Intubation
Laryngoscopes
Manikin
Randomised controlled trial
topic Intubation
Laryngoscopes
Manikin
Randomised controlled trial
description ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: Several devices can aid nasotracheal intubation when managing difficult airways. The McGrath MAC and Airtraq NT were compared with a Macintosh laryngoscope when studying the performance of anaesthetists with different levels of experience, in a manikin model of easy or difficult airway scenarios. METHODS: Sixty-three anaesthetists were recruited into a randomised trial in which each performed nasotracheal intubation with all laryngoscopes, in both scenarios. The main endpoint was intubation time. Additional endpoints included laryngoscopic view, intubation success, number of optimisation manoeuvres, audible dental clicks and the force applied to the upper airway. RESULTS: Intubation time was significantly shorter using the McGrath MAC in both scenarios and using the Airtraq in the difficult scenario, when compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Both devices gave more Cormack and Lehane grade 1 or 2 views than the Macintosh in the difficult scenario (p < 0.001). The McGrath MAC had the best first-attempt success rate (98.4% vs. 96.8% and 95.8%, p < 0.001 for the Airtraq NT and Macintosh laryngoscopes respectively). The number of optimisation manoeuvres, audible dental clicks and subjective assessment of the degree of force applied were significantly lower for indirect laryngoscopes versus the Macintosh laryngoscope (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In a manikin, the Airtraq and the McGrath laryngoscopes appeared superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope when dealing with simulated airway scenarios. Both devices were associated with better views, intubation times and rates of success, especially in a simulated "difficult airway". Overall satisfaction was highest with the McGrath laryngoscope. Similar clinical studies are needed.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-06-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942016000300289
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942016000300289
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjane.2014.10.009
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.66 n.3 2016
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron:SBA
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron_str SBA
institution SBA
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sba2000@openlink.com.br
_version_ 1752126628696162304