Cargando…

A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: An efficient neonatal airway management is peculiarly challenging even in the most experienced hands. Considering the recent interest in assessing the performance of various video-laryngoscopes (VL) in pediatric cohort, the prospective randomized study was contemplated to stage...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Goel, Sachin, Choudhary, Ripon, Magoon, Rohan, Sharma, Ridhima, Usha, G., Kapoor, Poonam M., Bagga, Deepak
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9728438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36505196
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_422_20
_version_ 1784845257117007872
author Goel, Sachin
Choudhary, Ripon
Magoon, Rohan
Sharma, Ridhima
Usha, G.
Kapoor, Poonam M.
Bagga, Deepak
author_facet Goel, Sachin
Choudhary, Ripon
Magoon, Rohan
Sharma, Ridhima
Usha, G.
Kapoor, Poonam M.
Bagga, Deepak
author_sort Goel, Sachin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: An efficient neonatal airway management is peculiarly challenging even in the most experienced hands. Considering the recent interest in assessing the performance of various video-laryngoscopes (VL) in pediatric cohort, the prospective randomized study was contemplated to stage a comparative evaluation of C-MAC with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 150 neonates were randomized to undergo intubation with either the C-MAC VL (n = 75) or the Miller laryngoscope (n = 75) performed by an experienced anesthesiologist in a tertiary care perioperative setting. The percentage of glottic opening (POGO), time to best glottic view (TTBGV), time to intubation (TTI), number of attempts, optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM) employed, and the complications were assessed and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: C-MAC group demonstrated a significantly higher POGO, compared to the Miller group (88 ± 26.7%;76.8 ± 32.1%, respectively, P = 0.022). TTBGV was significantly lower in the C-MAC (7.7 ± 0.1s) group as opposed to the Miller group (11.3 ± 1.1s). The C-MAC group displayed higher TTI values compared to the Miller group (25.4 ± 1.6s; 19.7 ± 1.2s, respectively, P < 0.01). The first-attempt intubation success rate and the number of attempts were comparable in both the groups. OELM was required in 24% of the patients in the Miller group as opposed to 10.7% in the C-MAC group (P = 0.031). Higher patient percentage in the C-MAC group required the need of stylet for assisting a successful intubation, although the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Despite an improved view of the glottis, the TTI was higher for C-MAC compared to direct laryngoscopy with a comparable first-attempt success rate in the two techniques.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9728438
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-97284382022-12-08 A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation Goel, Sachin Choudhary, Ripon Magoon, Rohan Sharma, Ridhima Usha, G. Kapoor, Poonam M. Bagga, Deepak J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol Original Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: An efficient neonatal airway management is peculiarly challenging even in the most experienced hands. Considering the recent interest in assessing the performance of various video-laryngoscopes (VL) in pediatric cohort, the prospective randomized study was contemplated to stage a comparative evaluation of C-MAC with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 150 neonates were randomized to undergo intubation with either the C-MAC VL (n = 75) or the Miller laryngoscope (n = 75) performed by an experienced anesthesiologist in a tertiary care perioperative setting. The percentage of glottic opening (POGO), time to best glottic view (TTBGV), time to intubation (TTI), number of attempts, optimal external laryngeal manipulation (OELM) employed, and the complications were assessed and compared between the two groups. RESULTS: C-MAC group demonstrated a significantly higher POGO, compared to the Miller group (88 ± 26.7%;76.8 ± 32.1%, respectively, P = 0.022). TTBGV was significantly lower in the C-MAC (7.7 ± 0.1s) group as opposed to the Miller group (11.3 ± 1.1s). The C-MAC group displayed higher TTI values compared to the Miller group (25.4 ± 1.6s; 19.7 ± 1.2s, respectively, P < 0.01). The first-attempt intubation success rate and the number of attempts were comparable in both the groups. OELM was required in 24% of the patients in the Miller group as opposed to 10.7% in the C-MAC group (P = 0.031). Higher patient percentage in the C-MAC group required the need of stylet for assisting a successful intubation, although the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Despite an improved view of the glottis, the TTI was higher for C-MAC compared to direct laryngoscopy with a comparable first-attempt success rate in the two techniques. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2022-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9728438/ /pubmed/36505196 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_422_20 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Anaesthesiology Clinical Pharmacology https://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
Goel, Sachin
Choudhary, Ripon
Magoon, Rohan
Sharma, Ridhima
Usha, G.
Kapoor, Poonam M.
Bagga, Deepak
A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation
title A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation
title_full A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation
title_fullStr A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation
title_full_unstemmed A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation
title_short A randomized comparative evaluation of C-MAC video-laryngoscope with Miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation
title_sort randomized comparative evaluation of c-mac video-laryngoscope with miller laryngoscope for neonatal endotracheal intubation
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9728438/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36505196
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/joacp.JOACP_422_20
work_keys_str_mv AT goelsachin arandomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT choudharyripon arandomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT magoonrohan arandomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT sharmaridhima arandomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT ushag arandomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT kapoorpoonamm arandomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT baggadeepak arandomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT goelsachin randomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT choudharyripon randomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT magoonrohan randomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT sharmaridhima randomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT ushag randomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT kapoorpoonamm randomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation
AT baggadeepak randomizedcomparativeevaluationofcmacvideolaryngoscopewithmillerlaryngoscopeforneonatalendotrachealintubation