Elective Tracheal Intubation With the VieScope-A Prospective Randomized Non-inferiority Pilot Study (VieScOP-Trial)
Standard
Elective Tracheal Intubation With the VieScope-A Prospective Randomized Non-inferiority Pilot Study (VieScOP-Trial). / Petzoldt, Martin; Engels, Yasmin; Popal, Zohal; Tariparast, Pischtaz A; Sasu, Phillip B; Brockmann, Andrés; Punke, Mark A; Grensemann, Jörn.
In: FRONT MED-LAUSANNE, Vol. 9, 2022, p. 820847.Research output: SCORING: Contribution to journal › SCORING: Journal article › Research › peer-review
Harvard
APA
Vancouver
Bibtex
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
T1 - Elective Tracheal Intubation With the VieScope-A Prospective Randomized Non-inferiority Pilot Study (VieScOP-Trial)
AU - Petzoldt, Martin
AU - Engels, Yasmin
AU - Popal, Zohal
AU - Tariparast, Pischtaz A
AU - Sasu, Phillip B
AU - Brockmann, Andrés
AU - Punke, Mark A
AU - Grensemann, Jörn
N1 - Copyright © 2022 Petzoldt, Engels, Popal, Tariparast, Sasu, Brockmann, Punke and Grensemann.
PY - 2022
Y1 - 2022
N2 - Background: Tracheal intubation is commonly performed after direct laryngoscopy using Macintosh laryngoscopes (MacL), but visualization of the larynx may be inadequate. The VieScope (VSC) as a new type of laryngoscope consisting of a straight, shielded, illuminated tube used to perform intubation via a bougie was investigated in this prospective randomized trial in patients without expected difficult airways.Methods: With ethics approval, 2 × 29 patients for elective surgery were randomized 1:1 to intubation with VSC or MacL. Endpoints were first attempt success rates (FAS), Percentage of Glottis Opening Scale (POGO), time to intubation (TTI), and difficulty ratings on visual analog scales (0-100, lower values better). Data are given as mean ± standard deviation.Results: The FAS was 83 ± 38% for VSC and 86 ± 34% for MacL (P = 0.723). For VSC, POGO was 86 ± 17% and for MacL 68 ± 30% (P = 0.007). TTI for VSC was 93 ± 67s vs. 38 ± 17 for MacL (P < 0.001). Difficulty of intubation was rated 23 ± 22 for VSC vs. 18 ± 22 for MacL (P = 0.422), viewing conditions 12 ± 15 vs. 24 ± 25 (P = 0.031), and difficulty of tube placement was rated 27 ± 30 vs. 7 ± 8 (P = 0.001).Conclusion: No difference in FAS was detected between VSC and MacL. Visualization of the larynx was superior using the VSC, while TTI was prolonged and tube placement via bougie was more challenging. The VSC could be an alternative to MacL in patients with difficult laryngoscopy, but this should be investigated further in patients with expected difficult airways.
AB - Background: Tracheal intubation is commonly performed after direct laryngoscopy using Macintosh laryngoscopes (MacL), but visualization of the larynx may be inadequate. The VieScope (VSC) as a new type of laryngoscope consisting of a straight, shielded, illuminated tube used to perform intubation via a bougie was investigated in this prospective randomized trial in patients without expected difficult airways.Methods: With ethics approval, 2 × 29 patients for elective surgery were randomized 1:1 to intubation with VSC or MacL. Endpoints were first attempt success rates (FAS), Percentage of Glottis Opening Scale (POGO), time to intubation (TTI), and difficulty ratings on visual analog scales (0-100, lower values better). Data are given as mean ± standard deviation.Results: The FAS was 83 ± 38% for VSC and 86 ± 34% for MacL (P = 0.723). For VSC, POGO was 86 ± 17% and for MacL 68 ± 30% (P = 0.007). TTI for VSC was 93 ± 67s vs. 38 ± 17 for MacL (P < 0.001). Difficulty of intubation was rated 23 ± 22 for VSC vs. 18 ± 22 for MacL (P = 0.422), viewing conditions 12 ± 15 vs. 24 ± 25 (P = 0.031), and difficulty of tube placement was rated 27 ± 30 vs. 7 ± 8 (P = 0.001).Conclusion: No difference in FAS was detected between VSC and MacL. Visualization of the larynx was superior using the VSC, while TTI was prolonged and tube placement via bougie was more challenging. The VSC could be an alternative to MacL in patients with difficult laryngoscopy, but this should be investigated further in patients with expected difficult airways.
U2 - 10.3389/fmed.2022.820847
DO - 10.3389/fmed.2022.820847
M3 - SCORING: Journal article
C2 - 35372419
VL - 9
SP - 820847
JO - FRONT MED-LAUSANNE
JF - FRONT MED-LAUSANNE
SN - 2296-858X
ER -