Effect of video laryngoscopy for non-trauma out-of-hospital cardiac arrest on clinical outcome: A registry-based analysis.

AIM: Videolaryngoscopy (VL) is a promising tool to provide a safe airway during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and to ensure early reoxygenation. Using data from the German Resuscitation Registry, we investigated the outcome of non-traumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients treated with VL versus direct laryngoscopy (DL) for airway management. METHODS: We analysed retrospective data of 14,387 patients from 1 January 2018 until 31 December 2021 (VL group, n = 2201; DL group, n = 12186). Primary endpoint was discharge with cerebral performance categories one and two (CPC1/2). Secondary endpoints were the rate of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC), hospital admission, hospital admission with ongoing cardiopulmonary resuscitation, 30-day survival/ hospital discharge and airway management complications. We used multivariate binary logistic regression analysis to identify the effects on outcome of known influencing variables and of VL vs DL. RESULTS: The multivariate regression model revealed that VL was an independent predictor of CPC1/2 survival (OR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.12-1.61, p = 0.002) and of hospital discharge/30-day survival (OR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.08-1.47, p = 0,004). CONCLUSION: VL for endotracheal intubation (ETI) at OHCA was associated with better neurological outcome in patients with ROSC. Therefore, the use of VL for OHCA offers a promising perspective. Further prospective studies are required.

Comparison of left double lumen tube and y-shaped and double-ended bronchial blocker for one lung ventilation in thoracic surgery-a randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Double lumen tube (DLT) intubation is the most commonly used technique for one lung ventilation. Bronchial blockers (BB) are an alternative, especially for difficult airways. The EZ-bronchial blocker (EZB) is an innovative y-shaped and double-ended device of the BB family. METHODS: A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in 80 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery using DLT or EZB for one lung ventilation (German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00014816). The objective of the study was to compare the clinical performance of EZB with DLT. Primary endpoint was total time to obtain successful one lung ventilation. Secondary endpoints were time subsections, quality of lung collapse, difficulty of intubation, any complications during the procedure, incidence of objective trauma of the oropharynx and supraglottic space and intubation-related subjective symptoms. RESULTS: 74 patients were included, DLT group (n = 38), EZB group (n = 36). Median total time to obtain one lung ventilation [IQR] in the DLT group was 234 s [207 to 294] versus 298 s [243 to 369] in the EZB group (P = 0.007). Median total time was relevantly influenced by different preparation times. Quality of lung collapse was equal in both groups, DLT group 89.5% were excellent vs. 83.3% in the EZB group (P = 0.444). Inadequate lung collapse in five patients of the EZB group resulted in unsuccessful repositioning attempts and secondary DLT placement. Endoscopic examinations revealed significantly more carina trauma (P = 0.047) and subglottic haemorrhage (P = 0.047) in the DLT group. Postoperative subjective symptoms (sore throat, hoarseness) were more common in the DLT group, as were speech problems. CONCLUSIONS: Using EZB prima facie results in prolonged time to obtain one lung ventilation with equal quality of lung collapse for the thoracic surgeon. If preparation times are omitted in the analysis, the time difference is statistically and clinically not relevant. Our data showed only little evidence for reducing objective airway trauma as well as subjective complaints. In summary both procedures were comparable in terms of times and clinical applicability. Therefore decisions for DLT or EZB should depend more on individual experience, in-house equipment and the individual patient, than on any times that are neither clinically significant nor relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00014816 , prospectively registered on 07.06.2018.

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for double-lumen endotracheal tube intubation in thoracic surgery - a randomised controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Double-lumen tube (DLT) intubation is necessary for thoracic surgery and other operations with the need for lung separation. However, DLT insertion is complex and might result in airway trauma. A new videolaryngoscopy (GVL) with a thin blade might improve the intubation time and reduce complexity as well as iatrogenic airway complications compared to conventional direct laryngoscopy (DL) for DLT intubation. METHODS: A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in 70 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery using DLT for lung separation. Primary endpoint was time to successful intubation. The secondary endpoints of this study were number of intubation attempts, the assessment of difficulty, any complications during DLT intubation and the incidence of objective trauma of the oropharynx and supraglottic space and intubation-related subjective symptoms. RESULTS: 65 patients were included (DL group [n  =  31], GVL group [n  =  34]). Median intubation time (25th-75th percentiles) in GVL group was 93 s (63-160) versus 74 (58-94) in DL group [p = 0.044]. GVL resulted in significantly improved visualisation of the larynx (Cormack and Lehane grade of 1 in GVL group was 97% vs. 74% in DL Group [p = 0.008]). Endoscopic examinations revealed significant differences in GVL group compared to DL group showing less red-blooded vocal cord [p = 0.004], vocal cord haematoma [p = 0.022] and vocal cord haemorrhage [p = 0.002]. No significant differences regarding the postoperative subjective symptoms of airway were found. CONCLUSIONS: Videolaryngoscopy using the GlideScope®-Titanium shortly prolongs DLT intubation duration compared to direct laryngoscopy but improves the view. Objective intubation trauma but not subjective complaints are reduced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00020978, retrospectively registered on 09. March 2020.