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

Yıl: 2023 Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2 Sayfa Aralığı: 212 - 221 Metin Dili: İngilizce DOI: 10.14744/nci.2021.76402 İndeks Tarihi: 03-06-2023

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

Öz:
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 fol- lowing 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 intu- bations. Glidescope was the most used rescue device in difficult intubations after failed direct laryngoscopy, with a high success rate.
Anahtar Kelime:

Belge Türü: Makale Makale Türü: Araştırma Makalesi Erişim Türü: Erişime Açık
  • 1. Law JA, Broemling N, Cooper RM, Drolet P, Duggan LV, Griesdale DE, et al; Canadian Airway Focus Group. The difficult airway with recommendations for management--part 1--difficult tracheal intuba- tion encountered in an unconscious/induced patient. Can J Anaesth 2013;60:1089–118.
  • 2. Ahmad I, El-Boghdadly K, Bhagrath R, Hodzovic I, McNarry AF, Mir F, et al. Difficult Airway Society guidelines for awake tracheal intuba- tion (ATI) in adults. Anaesthesia 2020;75:509–28.
  • 3. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C; Fourth National Audit Project. Ma- jor complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2011;106:617–31.
  • 4. Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, Blitt CD, Connis RT, Nicki- novich DG, et al; American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Practice guidelines for manage- ment of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Air- way. Anesthesiology 2013;118:251–70.
  • 5. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, Mendonca C, Bhagrath R, Patel A, et al; Difficult Airway Society intubation guidelines working group. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unantici- pated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth 2015;115:827–48.
  • 6. Smith AF. Creating guidelines and treating patients when there are no trials or systematic reviews. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2013;30:383–5.
  • 7. Law JA, Duggan LV, Asselin M, Baker P, Crosby E, Downey A, et al; Canadian Airway Focus Group. Canadian Airway Focus Group updat- ed consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 2. Planning and implementing safe management of the pa- tient with an anticipated difficult airway. Can J Anaesth 2021:1–32.
  • 8. Pieters BMA, Maas EHA, Knape JTA, van Zundert AAJ. Videolaryn- goscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in pa- tients with known difficult airways: a systematic review and meta-anal- ysis. Anaesthesia 2017;72:1532–41.
  • 9. Moore A, Schricker T. Awake videolaryngoscopy versus fiberoptic bronchoscopy. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2019;32:764–8.
  • 10. Kriege M, Alflen C, Tzanova I, Schmidtmann I, Piepho T, Noppens RR. Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol. BMJ Open 2017;7:e016907.
  • 11. Han R, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S, O’Reilly M. Grading scale for mask ventilation. Anesthesiology 2004;101:267.
  • 12. Saracoglu KT, Acarel M, Umuroglu T, Gogus FY. The use of Airtraq laryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope and fiberoptic broncho- scope by experienced anesthesiologists. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 2014;22:503–9.
  • 13. Roth D, Pace NL, Lee A, Hovhannisyan K, Warenits AM, Arrich J, et al. Airway physical examination tests for detection of difficult airway management in apparently normal adult patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;5:CD008874.
  • 14. Detsky ME, Jivraj N, Adhikari NK, Friedrich JO, Pinto R, Simel DL, et al. Will this patient be difficult to intubate?: The rational clinical ex- amination systematic review. JAMA 2019;321:493–503. Erratum in: JAMA 2020;323:1194.
  • 15. Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg 2004;99:607–13.
  • 16. Aziz MF, Abrons RO, Cattano D, Bayman EO, Swanson DE, Hagberg CE, et al. First-attempt intubation success of video laryngoscopy in pa- tients with anticipated difficult direct laryngoscopy: a multicenter ran- domized controlled trial comparing the C-MAC D-Blade Versus the GlideScope in a mixed provider and diverse patient population. Anesth Analg 2016;122:740–50.
  • 17. Saracoglu A, Saracoglu KT, Kafali IH. I have only D-blade: is it enough? J Clin Anesth 2016;34:68–9.
  • 18. Russell TM, Hormis A; Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust. Should the Glidescope video laryngoscope be used first line for all oral intu- bations or only in those with a difficult airway? A review of current literature. J Perioper Pract 2018;28:322–33.
  • 19. Moritz A, Holzhauser L, Fuchte T, Kremer S, Schmidt J, Irouschek A. Comparison of Glidescope Core, C-MAC Miller and conventional Mill- er laryngoscope for difficult airway management by anesthetists with limited and extensive experience in a simulated Pierre Robin sequence: a randomized crossover manikin study. PLoS One 2021;16:e0250369.
  • 20. Edelman DA, Perkins EJ, Brewster DJ. Difficult airway management algorithms: a directed review. Anaesthesia 2019;74:1175–85.
  • 21. Collins SR, Blank RS. Fiberoptic intubation: an overview and update. Respir Care 2014;59:865–78.
  • 22. Fiadjoe JE, Litman RS. Difficult tracheal intubation: looking to the past to determine the future. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:1181–2.
  • 23. Boulton AJ, Balla SR, Nowicka A, Loka TM, Mendonca C. Advanced airway training in the UK: a national survey of senior anesthetic train- ees. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2019;35:326–34.
  • 24. Ahmad I, Bailey CR. Time to abandon awake fibreoptic intubation? An- aesthesia 2016;71:12–6.
  • 25. Joffe AM, Liew EC, Olivar H, Dagal AH, Grabinsky A, Hallman M, et al. A national survey of airway management training in United States internal medicine-based critical care fellowship programs. Respiratory Care 2012;57:1084–8.
  • 26. Hoshijima H, Denawa Y, Tominaga A, Shiga T, Nagasaka H. Video- laryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults with obesity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Anesth 2018;44:69–75.
  • 27. Hodzovic I, Bedreag O. Awake videolaryngoscope - guided intubation - well worth adding to your skill-mix. Rom J Anaesth Intensive Care 2019;26:5–7.
  • 28. Aziz MF, Healy D, Kheterpal S, Fu RF, Dillman D, Brambrink AM. Routine clinical practice effectiveness of the Glidescope in difficult airway management: an analysis of 2,004 Glidescope intubations, complications, and failures from two institutions. Anesthesiology 2011;114:34–41.
  • 29. Mendonca C, Mesbah A, Velayudhan A, Danha R. A randomised clin- ical trial comparing the flexible fibrescope and the Pentax Airway Scope (AWS)® for awake oral tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 2016;71:908–14.
  • 30. Abdellatif AA, Ali MA. GlideScope videolaryngoscope versus flexible fibreoptic bronchoscope for awake intubation of morbidly obese pa- tient with predicted difficult intubation. Middle East J Anaesthesiol 2014;22:385–92.
  • 31. Wahba SS, Tammam TF, Saeed AM. Comparative study of awake en- dotracheal intubation with Glidescope video laryngoscope versus flexi- ble fiber optic bronchoscope in patients with trau- matic cervical spine injury. Egypt J Anaesth 2012:28:257–60.
  • 32. Dutta K, Sriganesh K, Chakrabarti D, Pruthi N, Reddy M. Cervical spine movement during awake orotracheal intubation with fiberoptic scope and mcgrath videolaryngoscope in patients undergoing surgery for cervical spine instability: a randomized control trial. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol 2020;32:249–55.
APA Saracoglu K, Yılmaz M, turan A, Saracoglu A, Kuş A, alparslan v, Deligöz Ö, Aykac Z, Ekinci O (2023). Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. , 212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
Chicago Saracoglu Kemal,Yılmaz Mehmet,turan Ayse Zeynep,Saracoglu Ayten,Kuş Alparslan,alparslan volkan,Deligöz Özlem,Aykac Zuhal,Ekinci Osman Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. (2023): 212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
MLA Saracoglu Kemal,Yılmaz Mehmet,turan Ayse Zeynep,Saracoglu Ayten,Kuş Alparslan,alparslan volkan,Deligöz Özlem,Aykac Zuhal,Ekinci Osman Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. , 2023, ss.212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
AMA Saracoglu K,Yılmaz M,turan A,Saracoglu A,Kuş A,alparslan v,Deligöz Ö,Aykac Z,Ekinci O Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. . 2023; 212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
Vancouver Saracoglu K,Yılmaz M,turan A,Saracoglu A,Kuş A,alparslan v,Deligöz Ö,Aykac Z,Ekinci O Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. . 2023; 212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
IEEE Saracoglu K,Yılmaz M,turan A,Saracoglu A,Kuş A,alparslan v,Deligöz Ö,Aykac Z,Ekinci O "Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study." , ss.212 - 221, 2023. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
ISNAD Saracoglu, Kemal vd. "Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study". (2023), 212-221. https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2021.76402
APA Saracoglu K, Yılmaz M, turan A, Saracoglu A, Kuş A, alparslan v, Deligöz Ö, Aykac Z, Ekinci O (2023). Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, 10(2), 212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
Chicago Saracoglu Kemal,Yılmaz Mehmet,turan Ayse Zeynep,Saracoglu Ayten,Kuş Alparslan,alparslan volkan,Deligöz Özlem,Aykac Zuhal,Ekinci Osman Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri 10, no.2 (2023): 212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
MLA Saracoglu Kemal,Yılmaz Mehmet,turan Ayse Zeynep,Saracoglu Ayten,Kuş Alparslan,alparslan volkan,Deligöz Özlem,Aykac Zuhal,Ekinci Osman Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, vol.10, no.2, 2023, ss.212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
AMA Saracoglu K,Yılmaz M,turan A,Saracoglu A,Kuş A,alparslan v,Deligöz Ö,Aykac Z,Ekinci O Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri. 2023; 10(2): 212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
Vancouver Saracoglu K,Yılmaz M,turan A,Saracoglu A,Kuş A,alparslan v,Deligöz Ö,Aykac Z,Ekinci O Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study. İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri. 2023; 10(2): 212 - 221. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
IEEE Saracoglu K,Yılmaz M,turan A,Saracoglu A,Kuş A,alparslan v,Deligöz Ö,Aykac Z,Ekinci O "Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study." İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri, 10, ss.212 - 221, 2023. 10.14744/nci.2021.76402
ISNAD Saracoglu, Kemal vd. "Evaluation of rescue techniques following failed laryngoscopy: A multicenter prospective observational study". İstanbul Kuzey Klinikleri 10/2 (2023), 212-221. https://doi.org/10.14744/nci.2021.76402