Cargando…

Vie Scope® versus videolaryngoscopy in expected difficult airways: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE: The management of patients with an anticipated difficult airway remains challenging. We evaluated laryngeal visualization with the recently introduced Vie Scope® as a straight blade laryngoscope consisting of an illuminated tube necessitating bougie-facilitated intubation vs Macintosh video...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Petzoldt, Martin, Grün, Catharina, Wünsch, Viktor A., Bauer, Marcus, Hardel, Tim T., Grensemann, Jörn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10447594/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37537324
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-023-02534-y
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The management of patients with an anticipated difficult airway remains challenging. We evaluated laryngeal visualization with the recently introduced Vie Scope® as a straight blade laryngoscope consisting of an illuminated tube necessitating bougie-facilitated intubation vs Macintosh videolaryngoscopy. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized controlled noninferiority trial. Patients undergoing elective ear, nose, and throat or oral and maxillofacial surgery with an anticipated difficult airway were randomized 1:1 to receive tracheal intubation with the Vie Scope or Macintosh videolaryngoscope (C-MAC®). The primary outcome measure was laryngeal visualization by the percentage of glottis opening (POGO) scale. Secondary outcome measures were the time to successful intubation (TTI) and first-attempt and overall success rates. RESULTS: We included two sets of 29 patients in our analysis. For visualization, the Vie Scope was noninferior to videolaryngoscopy (VL) with mean (standard deviation [SD]) POGO scores of 71 (31)% vs 64 (30)% in the VL group [difference in means, 7 (8)%; 95% confidence interval, –9 to 23; P = 0.38]. Mean (SD) TTI was 125 (129) sec in the Vie Scope and 51 (36) sec in the VL group (difference in means, 75 sec; 95% confidence interval, 25 to 124; P = 0.005). The first-attempt and overall success rates were 22/29 (76%) and 27/29 (93%) in both groups. Two patients per group were switched to a different device. Four accidental esophageal intubations occurred in the Vie Scope group, these were presumably due to bougie misplacement. CONCLUSION: Visualization with the Vie Scope was noninferior to VL in patients with an anticipated difficult airway, but TTI was longer in the Vie Scope group. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05044416); registered 5 September 2021. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version of this article contains supplementary material available 10.1007/s12630-023-02534-y.