Intubación traqueal «a ciegas» con la mascarilla air-Q ® (ILA-Cookgas). Comparación con la mascarilla laríngea de intubación ILMA-Fastrach™ / Blind tracheal intubation with the air-Q ® (ILA-Cookgas) mask. A comparison with the ILMA-Fastrach™ laryngeal intubation mask

Introducción y objetivos. El uso de los dispositivos supraglóticos en pacientes con dificultades para la intubación y/o ventilación se ha incrementado de manera progresiva tanto en el ámbito de la anestesia como en la medicina de urgencias. Este estudio se diseñó para evaluar la tasa de éxito de intubación «a ciegas» en pacientes sin criterios de vía aérea difícil con la mascarilla air-Q®, comparándola con el dispositivo supraglótico patrón: la mascarilla laríngea de intubación ILMA-Fastrach™. Pacientes y métodos. Se incluyeron 80 pacientes (40 por grupo). La inserción de los dispositivos se realizó de acuerdo con las instrucciones de los fabricantes. Tras la colocación, se realizó un test de fugas (aplicando una presión inspiratoria de 20 cmH2O por el ventilador). Se comprobó posteriormente la visión glótica usando un fibrobroncoscopio pediátrico, y se realizó la inserción de un tubo endotraqueal a través del dispositivo. En aquellos casos en que el intento resultó fallido, se retiró el dispositivo y se repitió nuevamente la secuencia. Se evaluaron, como objetivo primario, el éxito en la intubación, y como objetivos secundarios, la ventilación adecuada, el grado de visión fibrobroncoscópica y las complicaciones observadas tras su uso. Resultados. La ventilación adecuada en el primer intento de colocación fue mayor con ILMA-Fastrach™ que con air-Q® (90 frente a 60%, p = 0,0019), y el éxito global en la ventilación (primer y segundo intentos incluidos) fue mejor con ILMA-Fastrach™ (95 frente a 80%, p = 0,04). El grado de visión glótica de acuerdo con la escala de Brimacombe fue mejor con air-Q® (84,62 frente a 37,50%, p = 0,0017) en el segundo intento, pero no en el primero. No hubo diferencias en el porcentaje de intubación con ambos dispositivos. La incidencia de dolor de garganta fue similar con los 2 dispositivos empleados. Dos pacientes en el grupo de air-Q® presentaron ronquera y desaturación arterial. Conclusiones. Ambos dispositivos fueron igualmente eficaces para conseguir una adecuada intubación «a ciegas», y la incidencia de efectos adversos fue similar también con los 2. La ILMA-Fastrach™ permitió ventilar de forma adecuada a un mayor número de pacientes, pero como no se emplearon en ningún caso maniobras adicionales de recolocación, habrá que confirmar necesariamente estos resultados con futuros estudios (AU)

Background and objectives. Supraglottic airway devices are increasingly used in anesthesia and emergency medicine as a rescue for intubation and ventilation. This study was designed to investigate the air-Q® supralaryngeal device and compare it with the ILMA-Fastrach™ for airway rescue and intubation. Patients and methods. The devices were inserted in 80 patients (40 patients in each group) according to manufacturer’ instructions. An inspiration pressure of 20 cmH2O was applied through a ventilator for checking air leaks. If no air leak was detected, the glottis status was checked using a pediatric fiberoptic bronchoscope, followed by introducing an endotracheal tube through the supraglottic device. If the first attempt was unsuccessful, the device was removed and a second attempt was made in the same way. The primary outcome was the overall success rate for intubation. Other measurements were: successful ventilation, fiberoptic glottis view and adverse events. Results. Successful first-attempt ventilation was better with the Fastrach™ than with the air-Q® (90 vs. 60%, P = .0019) and overall ventilation success (first plus second attempts) was also better with ILMA-Fastrach™ (95 vs. 80%, P = .04). View of the glottis,according to Brimacombe scale, was better with air-Q® (84.62 vs. 37.50%, P = .0017) at the second, but not at the first, attempt. There were no differences in the percentage of successful intubations between the 2 devices. The incidence of sore throat was similar with both devices. Two patients in the air-Q® group suffered hoarseness and arterial desaturation, but the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusions. Both the ILMA-Fastrach™ and the air-Q® provided a similar rate of successful intubation, but ILMA-Fastrach™ was better for ventilation. The rate of adverse events was similar with both devices. Because no additional maneuver was used to facilitated intubation, there needs to be further studies to confirm these findings (AU)

[Blind tracheal intubation with the air-Q(®) (ILA-Cookgas) mask. A comparison with the ILMA-Fastrach™ laryngeal intubation mask]. / Intubación traqueal «a ciegas¼ con la mascarilla air-Q(®) (ILA-Cookgas). Comparación con la mascarilla laríngea de intubación ILMA-Fastrach™

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Supraglottic airway devices are increasingly used in anesthesia and emergency medicine as a rescue for intubation and ventilation. This study was designed to investigate the air-Q(®) supralaryngeal device and compare it with the ILMA-Fastrach™ for airway rescue and intubation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The devices were inserted in 80 patients (40 patients in each group) according to manufacturer' instructions. An inspiration pressure of 20cmH2O was applied through a ventilator for checking air leaks. If no air leak was detected, the glottis status was checked using a pediatric fiberoptic bronchoscope, followed by introducing an endotracheal tube through the supraglottic device. If the first attempt was unsuccessful, the device was removed and a second attempt was made in the same way. The primary outcome was the overall success rate for intubation. Other measurements were: successful ventilation, fiberoptic glottis view and adverse events. RESULTS: Successful first-attempt ventilation was better with the Fastrach™ than with the air-Q(®) (90 vs. 60%, P=.0019) and overall ventilation success (first plus second attempts) was also better with ILMA-Fastrach™ (95 vs. 80%, P=.04). View of the glottis,according to Brimacombe scale, was better with air-Q(®) (84.62 vs. 37.50%, P=.0017) at the second, but not at the first, attempt. There were no differences in the percentage of successful intubations between the 2 devices. The incidence of sore throat was similar with both devices. Two patients in the air-Q(®) group suffered hoarseness and arterial desaturation, but the difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both the ILMA-Fastrach™ and the air-Q(®) provided a similar rate of successful intubation, but ILMA-Fastrach™ was better for ventilation. The rate of adverse events was similar with both devices. Because no additional maneuver was used to facilitated intubation, there needs to be further studies to confirm these findings.

Diagnóstico mediante ecocardiografía transesofágica de canulación accidental de la aurícula izquierda, por una cánula de vena cava inferior / Diagnosis by transesophageal echocardiography of an accidental cannulation of the left atrium by an inferior vena cava catheter

No disponible