A randomized comparison between the VivaSight double-lumen tube and standard double-lumen tube intubation in thoracic surgery patients

BACKGROUND: Thoracic surgery often demands separation of ventilation between the lungs. It is achieved with double-lumen tubes (DLTs), video double-lumen tubes (VDLTs) or bronchial blockers. We tested the hypothesis that intubation with the VivaSight double-lumen tube would be easier and faster than with a standard DLT. METHODS: Seventy-one adult patients undergoing thoracic procedures that required general anaesthesia and one-lung ventilation (OLV) were enrolled in this randomized, prospective study. Patients were randomly assigned to procedure of intubation with a standard DLT or VDLT. The collected data included: patients’ demographics, surgery information, anthropometric tests used for difficult intubation prediction, specifics of intubation procedure, tube placement, fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) use, lung separation, trachea temperature, and reported complications of intubation. RESULTS: For DLTs compared to video-double lumen tubes, intubation time was significantly longer (125 vs. 44 s; P<0.001), intubation graded harder (P<0.05) and FOB use was more prevalent [8 (20.5%) vs. 0; P<0.05]. CONCLUSIONS: The use of VDLTs when compared with standard-double lumen tubes offers reduced intubation time and is relatively easier. Also, the reduced need for fibreoptic bronchoscopy may improve the cost-effectiveness of VDLT use. In addition, constant visualization of the airways during the procedure allows to quickly correct or even prevent the tube malposition. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04101734.