Cargando…

Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol

INTRODUCTION: The direct laryngoscopy technique using a Macintosh blade is the first choice globally for most anaesthetists. In case of an unanticipated difficult airway, the complication rate increases with the number of intubation attempts. Recently, McGrath MAC (McGrath) video laryngoscopy has be...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kriege, Marc, Alflen, Christian, Tzanova, Irene, Schmidtmann, Irene, Piepho, Tim, Noppens, Ruediger R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28827261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016907
_version_ 1783285323550162944
author Kriege, Marc
Alflen, Christian
Tzanova, Irene
Schmidtmann, Irene
Piepho, Tim
Noppens, Ruediger R
author_facet Kriege, Marc
Alflen, Christian
Tzanova, Irene
Schmidtmann, Irene
Piepho, Tim
Noppens, Ruediger R
author_sort Kriege, Marc
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The direct laryngoscopy technique using a Macintosh blade is the first choice globally for most anaesthetists. In case of an unanticipated difficult airway, the complication rate increases with the number of intubation attempts. Recently, McGrath MAC (McGrath) video laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for securing an airway by tracheal intubation because it allows the visualisation of the glottis without a direct line of sight. Several studies and case reports have highlighted the benefit of the video laryngoscope in the visualisation of the glottis and found it to be superior in difficult intubation situations. The aim of this study was to compare the first-pass intubation success rate using the (McGrath) video laryngoscope compared with conventional direct laryngoscopy in surgical patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EMMA trial is a multicentre, open-label, patient-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Consecutive patients requiring tracheal intubation are randomly allocated to either the McGrath video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscopy using the Macintosh laryngoscope. The expected rate of successful first-pass intubation is 95% in the McGrath group and 90% in the Macintosh group. Each group must include a total of 1000 patients to achieve 96% power for detecting a difference at the 5% significance level. Successful intubation with the first attempt is the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints are the time to intubation, attempts for successful intubation, the necessity of alternatives, visualisation of the glottis using the Cormack & Lehane score and percentage of glottic opening score and definite complications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project was approved by the local ethics committee of the Medical Association of the Rhineland Palatine state and Westphalia-Lippe. The results of this study will be made available in the form of manuscripts for publication and presentations at national and international meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 02611986; pre-results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5724220
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57242202017-12-19 Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol Kriege, Marc Alflen, Christian Tzanova, Irene Schmidtmann, Irene Piepho, Tim Noppens, Ruediger R BMJ Open Anaesthesia INTRODUCTION: The direct laryngoscopy technique using a Macintosh blade is the first choice globally for most anaesthetists. In case of an unanticipated difficult airway, the complication rate increases with the number of intubation attempts. Recently, McGrath MAC (McGrath) video laryngoscopy has become a widely accepted method for securing an airway by tracheal intubation because it allows the visualisation of the glottis without a direct line of sight. Several studies and case reports have highlighted the benefit of the video laryngoscope in the visualisation of the glottis and found it to be superior in difficult intubation situations. The aim of this study was to compare the first-pass intubation success rate using the (McGrath) video laryngoscope compared with conventional direct laryngoscopy in surgical patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EMMA trial is a multicentre, open-label, patient-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Consecutive patients requiring tracheal intubation are randomly allocated to either the McGrath video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscopy using the Macintosh laryngoscope. The expected rate of successful first-pass intubation is 95% in the McGrath group and 90% in the Macintosh group. Each group must include a total of 1000 patients to achieve 96% power for detecting a difference at the 5% significance level. Successful intubation with the first attempt is the primary endpoint. The secondary endpoints are the time to intubation, attempts for successful intubation, the necessity of alternatives, visualisation of the glottis using the Cormack & Lehane score and percentage of glottic opening score and definite complications. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The project was approved by the local ethics committee of the Medical Association of the Rhineland Palatine state and Westphalia-Lippe. The results of this study will be made available in the form of manuscripts for publication and presentations at national and international meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT 02611986; pre-results. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-08-21 /pmc/articles/PMC5724220/ /pubmed/28827261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016907 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Anaesthesia
Kriege, Marc
Alflen, Christian
Tzanova, Irene
Schmidtmann, Irene
Piepho, Tim
Noppens, Ruediger R
Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol
title Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol
title_full Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol
title_fullStr Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol
title_short Evaluation of the McGrath MAC and Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre EMMA trial study protocol
title_sort evaluation of the mcgrath mac and macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in 2000 patients undergoing general anaesthesia: the randomised multicentre emma trial study protocol
topic Anaesthesia
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724220/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28827261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016907
work_keys_str_mv AT kriegemarc evaluationofthemcgrathmacandmacintoshlaryngoscopefortrachealintubationin2000patientsundergoinggeneralanaesthesiatherandomisedmulticentreemmatrialstudyprotocol
AT alflenchristian evaluationofthemcgrathmacandmacintoshlaryngoscopefortrachealintubationin2000patientsundergoinggeneralanaesthesiatherandomisedmulticentreemmatrialstudyprotocol
AT tzanovairene evaluationofthemcgrathmacandmacintoshlaryngoscopefortrachealintubationin2000patientsundergoinggeneralanaesthesiatherandomisedmulticentreemmatrialstudyprotocol
AT schmidtmannirene evaluationofthemcgrathmacandmacintoshlaryngoscopefortrachealintubationin2000patientsundergoinggeneralanaesthesiatherandomisedmulticentreemmatrialstudyprotocol
AT piephotim evaluationofthemcgrathmacandmacintoshlaryngoscopefortrachealintubationin2000patientsundergoinggeneralanaesthesiatherandomisedmulticentreemmatrialstudyprotocol
AT noppensruedigerr evaluationofthemcgrathmacandmacintoshlaryngoscopefortrachealintubationin2000patientsundergoinggeneralanaesthesiatherandomisedmulticentreemmatrialstudyprotocol