Cargando…
The skill of tracheal intubation with rigid scopes – a randomised controlled trial comparing learning curves in 740 intubations
BACKGROUND: Rigid scopes are successfully used for management of difficult airways, but learning curves have not been established. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was performed at the University Hospital Bern in Switzerland to establish learning curves for the rigid scopes Bonfils and Sens...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7565755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33066735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01181-w |
_version_ | 1783596001847672832 |
---|---|
author | Theiler, Lorenz Greif, Robert Bütikofer, Lukas Arheart, Kristopher Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren |
author_facet | Theiler, Lorenz Greif, Robert Bütikofer, Lukas Arheart, Kristopher Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren |
author_sort | Theiler, Lorenz |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Rigid scopes are successfully used for management of difficult airways, but learning curves have not been established. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was performed at the University Hospital Bern in Switzerland to establish learning curves for the rigid scopes Bonfils and SensaScope and to assess their performance. Fifteen consultant anaesthetists and 15 anaesthesia registrars performed a total of 740 intubations (10 to 20 intubations with each device per physician) in adult patients without predictors of a difficult airway under general anaesthesia. According to randomisation, physicians intubated the patient’s trachea with either the Bonfils or the SensaScope. A maximum of three intubation attempts was allowed. Primary outcome was overall time to successful intubation. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt success, first attempt success within 60 s, failures and adverse events. RESULTS: A clear learning effect was demonstrated: Over 20 trials, intubations became 2.5-times quicker and first attempt intubation success probability increased by 21–28 percentage points. Fourteen and 20 trials were needed with the Bonfils and the SensaScope, respectively, to reach a 90% first attempt success probability. Intubation times were 23% longer (geometric mean ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.12–1.36, p < 0.001) and first attempt success was less likely (odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.45–0.92, p = 0.016) with the SensaScope. Consultants showed a tendency for a better first attempt success compared to registrars. Overall, 23 intubations (10 Bonfils, 13 SensaScope) failed. Adverse events were rare and did not differ between devices. CONCLUSIONS: A clear learning effect was demonstrated for both rigid scopes. Fourteen intubations with the Bonfils and 20 intubations with the SensaScope were required to reach a 90% first attempt success probability. Learning of the technique seemed more complex with the SensaScope compared to the Bonfils. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN14429285. Registered 28 September 2011, retrospectively registered. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7565755 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75657552020-10-20 The skill of tracheal intubation with rigid scopes – a randomised controlled trial comparing learning curves in 740 intubations Theiler, Lorenz Greif, Robert Bütikofer, Lukas Arheart, Kristopher Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren BMC Anesthesiol Research Article BACKGROUND: Rigid scopes are successfully used for management of difficult airways, but learning curves have not been established. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial was performed at the University Hospital Bern in Switzerland to establish learning curves for the rigid scopes Bonfils and SensaScope and to assess their performance. Fifteen consultant anaesthetists and 15 anaesthesia registrars performed a total of 740 intubations (10 to 20 intubations with each device per physician) in adult patients without predictors of a difficult airway under general anaesthesia. According to randomisation, physicians intubated the patient’s trachea with either the Bonfils or the SensaScope. A maximum of three intubation attempts was allowed. Primary outcome was overall time to successful intubation. Secondary outcome parameters included first attempt success, first attempt success within 60 s, failures and adverse events. RESULTS: A clear learning effect was demonstrated: Over 20 trials, intubations became 2.5-times quicker and first attempt intubation success probability increased by 21–28 percentage points. Fourteen and 20 trials were needed with the Bonfils and the SensaScope, respectively, to reach a 90% first attempt success probability. Intubation times were 23% longer (geometric mean ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.12–1.36, p < 0.001) and first attempt success was less likely (odds ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.45–0.92, p = 0.016) with the SensaScope. Consultants showed a tendency for a better first attempt success compared to registrars. Overall, 23 intubations (10 Bonfils, 13 SensaScope) failed. Adverse events were rare and did not differ between devices. CONCLUSIONS: A clear learning effect was demonstrated for both rigid scopes. Fourteen intubations with the Bonfils and 20 intubations with the SensaScope were required to reach a 90% first attempt success probability. Learning of the technique seemed more complex with the SensaScope compared to the Bonfils. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN14429285. Registered 28 September 2011, retrospectively registered. BioMed Central 2020-10-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7565755/ /pubmed/33066735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01181-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Theiler, Lorenz Greif, Robert Bütikofer, Lukas Arheart, Kristopher Kleine-Brueggeney, Maren The skill of tracheal intubation with rigid scopes – a randomised controlled trial comparing learning curves in 740 intubations |
title | The skill of tracheal intubation with rigid scopes – a randomised controlled trial comparing learning curves in 740 intubations |
title_full | The skill of tracheal intubation with rigid scopes – a randomised controlled trial comparing learning curves in 740 intubations |
title_fullStr | The skill of tracheal intubation with rigid scopes – a randomised controlled trial comparing learning curves in 740 intubations |
title_full_unstemmed | The skill of tracheal intubation with rigid scopes – a randomised controlled trial comparing learning curves in 740 intubations |
title_short | The skill of tracheal intubation with rigid scopes – a randomised controlled trial comparing learning curves in 740 intubations |
title_sort | skill of tracheal intubation with rigid scopes – a randomised controlled trial comparing learning curves in 740 intubations |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7565755/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33066735 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12871-020-01181-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT theilerlorenz theskilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations AT greifrobert theskilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations AT butikoferlukas theskilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations AT arheartkristopher theskilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations AT kleinebrueggeneymaren theskilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations AT theilerlorenz skilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations AT greifrobert skilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations AT butikoferlukas skilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations AT arheartkristopher skilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations AT kleinebrueggeneymaren skilloftrachealintubationwithrigidscopesarandomisedcontrolledtrialcomparinglearningcurvesin740intubations |