Rapid-Sequence Intubation in the Left-Lateral Tilt Position in a Pregnant Woman with Premature Placental Abruption Utilizing a Videolaryngoscope

Flexible Bronchoscope versus Video Laryngoscope for Orotracheal Intubation During Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgery in Left Lateral Position: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

Endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) has become the primary treatment for early upper gastrointestinal tract lesions. During endoscopic surgery, endotracheal intubation is generally performed in the patients’ supine position, and patients are shifted to the left lateral position for endoscopic surgery. This study compared the efficacy of flexible bronchoscope-guided intubation with that of video laryngoscope-guided intubation in the left lateral position.

Patients and Methods

Forty-eight patients receiving ESD were randomly divided into the flexible bronchoscope group (group F) or the video laryngoscope group (group V). Tracheal intubation was performed by a trained anesthetist with a flexible bronchoscope (group F) or unchanneled video laryngoscope (group V) in the left lateral position. Primary outcomes included the intubation duration and success rate. Secondary outcomes included the ease of intubation technique and the occurrence of complications.

Results

Twenty-four (100%) patients in group F and twenty-three (95.8%) in group V were successfully intubated (P = 1.000). The median intubation time in group F was 37s (interquartile range, 33.0, 44.5), which was significantly shorter compared to group V (53s [45.5, 66.5]; P < 0.001). The flexible bronchoscope was significantly easier to manage than the video laryngoscope, as reflected by the users scoring system (9 [9, 10] vs 8 [7, 8]; P < 0.001). The presence of perioperative adverse events and complications were comparable between the two groups.

Conclusion

Both flexible bronchoscope- and video laryngoscope-guided intubation in patients’ left lateral position achieved high success rates and comparable complication rates. However, intubation with the flexible bronchoscope was completed more quickly.

Comparison of videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in obstetrics: a mixed-methods systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The incidence of difficult and failed intubation is higher in obstetrical patients than in the general population because of anatomic and physiologic changes in pregnancy. Videolaryngoscopy improves the success rate of intubation and reduces complications when compared with direct laryngoscopy in adults; however, it is not known whether this extends to obstetrical surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy, efficiency, and safety of videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy in obstetrics.

SOURCE

Central, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 27 May 2020 with no restrictions. Inclusion criteria included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case series, and case reports that reported the application of videolaryngoscopy to intubate the trachea in pregnant patients having general anesthesia.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Overall, four RCTs with 428 participants, nine observational studies, and 35 case reports/series with 100 participants were included. On meta-analysis of three trials, the co-primary outcomes of first-attempt success rate (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.98 to 1.06; P = 0.29; I2 = 0%) and time to tracheal intubation (mean difference, 1.20 sec; 95% CI, -6.63 to 9.04; P = 0.76; I² = 95%) demonstrated no difference between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in parturients without difficult airways. Observational studies and case reports underline the role of videolaryngoscopy as a primary choice when difficulty with tracheal intubation is expected or as a rescue modality in difficult or failed intubations.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the utility of videolaryngoscopy continues to evolve but supports its increased adoption in obstetrics where videolaryngoscopes should be immediately available for use as a first-line device.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020189521); registered 6 July 2020.