Cargando…

A Comparative Evaluation of Hemodynamic Response and Ease of Intubation using Airtraq and McCoy Laryngoscope

BACKGROUND: Various airway gadgets have been devised to overcome difficult airway scenario in anesthesia practice. It includes simple rigid laryngoscope to complex fiber-optic intubating devices; however, there is weak evidence to support the superiority of one device over the other. AIMS AND OBJECT...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sahoo, Alok Kumar, Majhi, Kalpana, Mandal, Indraprava
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6775836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31602068
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/aer.AER_43_19
_version_ 1783456331612553216
author Sahoo, Alok Kumar
Majhi, Kalpana
Mandal, Indraprava
author_facet Sahoo, Alok Kumar
Majhi, Kalpana
Mandal, Indraprava
author_sort Sahoo, Alok Kumar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Various airway gadgets have been devised to overcome difficult airway scenario in anesthesia practice. It includes simple rigid laryngoscope to complex fiber-optic intubating devices; however, there is weak evidence to support the superiority of one device over the other. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: The ease of intubation, time and the hemodynamic variability between two groups during intubation are considered as the primary outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 60 patients of either sex undergoing elective surgery who required tracheal intubation were included. All the patients of age between 20 and 50 years with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Classes I and II were divided into the following two groups: Group AT (n = 30): the intubation was performed using AT laryngoscope and Group-MC (n = 30); the intubation was performed using MC laryngoscope. The following intubating parameters were recorded: ease of intubation (Grade-I–IV), mean time of laryngoscopy and intubation, Cormack–Lehane grade, and the percentage of glottis opening (POGO) score. The vital parameters such as heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) were recorded only after premedication, and it was taken as the baseline value. These parameters were again recorded at 1 min, 3 min, 5 min, and 10 min after laryngoscopy and intubation. The incidences of sore throat were recorded just before discharge from the recovery room till 24 h of surgery. All these parameters were compared between these two groups using the Student's t-test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in age, sex, weight, and Mallampati grading between the two groups. More than 30% of patients in Group AT were intubated without an external aid than the Group MC (P < 0.05). In Group AT, the mean time of intubation was 13.5 ± 5.72 s when compared to 15.63 ± 7.28 s in Group MC (P > 0.05). The Cormack–Lehane grade and POGO score were better in the AT group than that of the MC group. The HR at 1 min in Group AT was 101.83 ± 14.50 and in Group MC, it was 108.93 ± 12.86 (P < 0.05) and after 3 min, it was 98.66 ± 12.60 and 111.53 ± 11.67 (P < 0.05), respectively. The MABP was 107.17 ± 9.03 in Group AT compared to 116 ± 10.12 in Group MC (P < 0.05) at 1 min postintubation. The incidences of sore throat were similar in both the groups. CONCLUSION: The AT laryngoscope is better than MC in terms of the ease of intubation, better glottis view, and hemodynamic stability. However, the incidences of sore throat in both groups were comparable.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6775836
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67758362019-10-10 A Comparative Evaluation of Hemodynamic Response and Ease of Intubation using Airtraq and McCoy Laryngoscope Sahoo, Alok Kumar Majhi, Kalpana Mandal, Indraprava Anesth Essays Res Original Article BACKGROUND: Various airway gadgets have been devised to overcome difficult airway scenario in anesthesia practice. It includes simple rigid laryngoscope to complex fiber-optic intubating devices; however, there is weak evidence to support the superiority of one device over the other. AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: The ease of intubation, time and the hemodynamic variability between two groups during intubation are considered as the primary outcome measures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective study, 60 patients of either sex undergoing elective surgery who required tracheal intubation were included. All the patients of age between 20 and 50 years with the American Society of Anesthesiologists Classes I and II were divided into the following two groups: Group AT (n = 30): the intubation was performed using AT laryngoscope and Group-MC (n = 30); the intubation was performed using MC laryngoscope. The following intubating parameters were recorded: ease of intubation (Grade-I–IV), mean time of laryngoscopy and intubation, Cormack–Lehane grade, and the percentage of glottis opening (POGO) score. The vital parameters such as heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) were recorded only after premedication, and it was taken as the baseline value. These parameters were again recorded at 1 min, 3 min, 5 min, and 10 min after laryngoscopy and intubation. The incidences of sore throat were recorded just before discharge from the recovery room till 24 h of surgery. All these parameters were compared between these two groups using the Student's t-test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in age, sex, weight, and Mallampati grading between the two groups. More than 30% of patients in Group AT were intubated without an external aid than the Group MC (P < 0.05). In Group AT, the mean time of intubation was 13.5 ± 5.72 s when compared to 15.63 ± 7.28 s in Group MC (P > 0.05). The Cormack–Lehane grade and POGO score were better in the AT group than that of the MC group. The HR at 1 min in Group AT was 101.83 ± 14.50 and in Group MC, it was 108.93 ± 12.86 (P < 0.05) and after 3 min, it was 98.66 ± 12.60 and 111.53 ± 11.67 (P < 0.05), respectively. The MABP was 107.17 ± 9.03 in Group AT compared to 116 ± 10.12 in Group MC (P < 0.05) at 1 min postintubation. The incidences of sore throat were similar in both the groups. CONCLUSION: The AT laryngoscope is better than MC in terms of the ease of intubation, better glottis view, and hemodynamic stability. However, the incidences of sore throat in both groups were comparable. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6775836/ /pubmed/31602068 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/aer.AER_43_19 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Anesthesia: Essays and Researches http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Sahoo, Alok Kumar
Majhi, Kalpana
Mandal, Indraprava
A Comparative Evaluation of Hemodynamic Response and Ease of Intubation using Airtraq and McCoy Laryngoscope
title A Comparative Evaluation of Hemodynamic Response and Ease of Intubation using Airtraq and McCoy Laryngoscope
title_full A Comparative Evaluation of Hemodynamic Response and Ease of Intubation using Airtraq and McCoy Laryngoscope
title_fullStr A Comparative Evaluation of Hemodynamic Response and Ease of Intubation using Airtraq and McCoy Laryngoscope
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Evaluation of Hemodynamic Response and Ease of Intubation using Airtraq and McCoy Laryngoscope
title_short A Comparative Evaluation of Hemodynamic Response and Ease of Intubation using Airtraq and McCoy Laryngoscope
title_sort comparative evaluation of hemodynamic response and ease of intubation using airtraq and mccoy laryngoscope
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6775836/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31602068
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/aer.AER_43_19
work_keys_str_mv AT sahooalokkumar acomparativeevaluationofhemodynamicresponseandeaseofintubationusingairtraqandmccoylaryngoscope
AT majhikalpana acomparativeevaluationofhemodynamicresponseandeaseofintubationusingairtraqandmccoylaryngoscope
AT mandalindraprava acomparativeevaluationofhemodynamicresponseandeaseofintubationusingairtraqandmccoylaryngoscope
AT sahooalokkumar comparativeevaluationofhemodynamicresponseandeaseofintubationusingairtraqandmccoylaryngoscope
AT majhikalpana comparativeevaluationofhemodynamicresponseandeaseofintubationusingairtraqandmccoylaryngoscope
AT mandalindraprava comparativeevaluationofhemodynamicresponseandeaseofintubationusingairtraqandmccoylaryngoscope