Glidescope versus Airtraq DL for double-lumen tracheal tube insertion in patients with a predicted or known difficult airway: A randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Double-lumen tracheal tube (DLT) insertion can be managed with videolaryngoscopes such as the Glidescope or indirect laryngoscopes like the Airtraq DL. No study has compared both devices when a difficult intubation is predicted. OBJECTIVE: Our hypothesis was that the Glidescope is superior to the Airtraq for double-lumen tube insertion in patients with a predicted or known difficult airway. DESIGN: Randomised study. PATIENTS: Adults scheduled for thoracic elective surgery, requiring one-lung ventilation with a predicted difficult intubation score of at least 7 (Arné risk index). INTERVENTION: Between March 2014 and March 2015, adult patients, scheduled for elective thoracic surgery, requiring double-lumen tracheal tube placement, and with a predicted risk (evaluated preoperatively using the Arné score) or a history of difficult intubation, were allocated to a Glidescope or an Airtraq group. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the overall success rate of tracheal intubation after two attempts. Secondary outcomes were success rates on the first attempt, duration of intubation, need for laryngeal pressure, Cormack and Lehane grade and side-effects. RESULTS: Of 277 patients, 78 were predicted to have a difficult airway. Finally, 72 patients were enrolled. Neither the overall success rates of tracheal intubation [Glidescope group 31/36 (86%) versus Airtraq group 34/36 (94%), P = 0.43] nor the side-effects differed between groups. There was no difference concerning visualisation of the glottis using the Cormack and Lehane grade (P = 0.18) or intubation time [Glidescope group 67 s (49 to 90) versus Airtraq group 81 s (59 to 101), P = 0.28]. All patients with a previous history of difficult intubation were intubated successfully. CONCLUSION: There is no difference in success rates of tracheal intubation with a double-lumen tube in patients with a predicted or known difficult airway when using either a Glidescope or Airtraq device. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National register of the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety No. 2014-A00143-44.

Influence of videolaryngoscopy using McGrath Mac on the need for a helper to perform intubation during general anaesthesia: a multicentre randomised video-no-video trial.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that videolaryngoscopy modifies practice of tracheal intubation. DESIGN: Randomised single-blinded study (video and no-video groups). SETTING: Three institutions: one academic, one non-profit and one profit. PARTICIPANTS: Patients >18 years, requiring orotracheal intubation, without predicted difficult intubation. Non-inclusion criterion was patients requiring a rapid-sequence intubation. 300 patients were included, 271 randomised, 256 analysed: 123 in the no-video and 133 in the video groups. INTERVENTION: Tracheal intubation using a McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope, the sequence being video recorded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of intubations where assistance is necessary on request of the operator. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables (intubation difficulty scale and its components, percentage of glottic opening score, oesophageal Intubation, duration of intubation, removal of the screen cover in the no-video group, global evaluation of the ease of intubation, bispectral index, heart rate and blood pressure), intraoperative and postoperative complications (hoarseness or sore throat) and cooperation of the anaesthesiology team. RESULTS: Requirement for assistance was not decreased in the Video group: 36.1% (95% CI 27.9 to 44.9) vs 45.5% (95% CI 36.5 to 54.7) in the no-video group, p=0.74; OR: 0.7 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1) and absolute risk: 0.10 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.22). Intubation difficulty scale was similar in both groups (p=0.05). Percentage of glottic opening score was better in the Video group (median of 100 (95% CI (100 to 100) and 80 (95%CI (80 to 90) in the no-video group; p<0.001) as Cormack and Lehane grade (p=0001). Ease of intubation was considered better in the video group (p<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. Screen cover was removed in 7.3% (95% CI (2.7 to 11.9)) of the cases in the video group. No serious adverse event occurred. Communication and behaviour within the anaesthesia team were appropriate in all cases. CONCLUSION: In patients without predicted difficult intubation, videolaryngoscopy did not decrease the requirement for assistance to perform intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02926144; Results.