Ease of Intubation with C-MAC Videolaryngoscope: Use of 60° Angled Styletted Endotracheal Tube versus Intubation over Bougie

Bougie approach improves first-attempt success rate compared to stylet approach in patients with difficult airway needing endotracheal intubation: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Bougies and stylets are widely acknowledged as effective tools for managing endotracheal intubation, uncertainties persist regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of bougie versus stylet approaches in endotracheal intubation.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A comprehensive electronic search was conducted on the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases from inception to December 9, 2023, using the keywords "endotracheal intubation," "bougie," and "stylet." This meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the performance of bougies and stylets in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

A total of 12 articles, encompassing 2534 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. The bougie approach did not exhibit superiority in first-attempt success rate (83.6% vs. 81.7%; OR, 1.06, 95% CI, 0.49 to 2.29; P=0.89) and total intubation success rate (99.3% vs. 97.6%; OR, 2.32, 95% CI, 0.44 to 12.34; P=0.32, I2>50%, P<0.001). However, in patients with difficult airways, the bougie approach demonstrated a superior first-attempt success rate compared to the stylet approach (93.8% vs. 76.4%; OR, 5.25, 95% CI, 2.74 to 10.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in complications between the bougie and stylet approaches (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with difficult airway characteristics, our recommendation is to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI) using the bougie approach over the stylet approach, as it has been associated with a better first-attempt success rate. Notably, the advantages of using a bougie may be less pronounced for patients without signs of a difficult airway.

Effect of Bougie Use on First-Attempt Success in Tracheal Intubations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The use of a bougie, a flexible endotracheal tube introducer, has been proposed to optimize first-attempt success in emergency department intubations. We aimed to evaluate the available evidence on the association of bougie use in the first attempt and success in tracheal intubations. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated first-attempt success between adults intubated with a bougie versus without a bougie (usually with a stylet) in all settings. Manikin and cadaver studies were excluded. A medical librarian searched Ovid Cochrane Central, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies from inception to June 2023. Study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers. We conducted a meta-analysis with random-effects models, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence at the outcome level. We screened a total of 2,699 studies, and 133 were selected for full-text review. A total of 18 studies, including 12 randomized controlled trials, underwent quantitative analysis. In the meta-analysis of 18 studies (9,151 patients), bougie use was associated with increased first-attempt intubation success (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.17, low certainty evidence). Bougie use was associated with increased first-attempt success across all analyzed subgroups with similar effect estimates, including in emergency intubations (9 studies; 8,070 patients; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16, low certainty). The highest point estimate favoring the use of a bougie was in the subgroup of patients with Cormack-Lehane III or IV (5 studies, 585 patients, RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.84, moderate certainty). In this meta-analysis, the bougie as an aid in the first intubation attempt was associated with increased success. Despite the certainty of evidence being low, these data suggest that a bougie should probably be used first and not as a rescue device in emergency intubations.

Development of endotracheal intubation devices for patients with tumors

The incidence and mortality of malignant tumors are rapidly increasing in the world. Patients with malignant tumors often need surgery for treatment. Endotracheal intubation is a necessary technique for surgical patients undergoing general anesthesia. It is also an important procedure for critically ill patients in the emergency room or ICU. Most patients with head and neck tumors and some specific patients have difficult airways, so the operator may need to use a variety of intubation devices. The commonly used devices for endotracheal intubation include endotracheal tube, direct laryngoscope, video laryngoscope, introducer, optical stylet, fiberoptic bronchoscope. With the advancement in science and technology, the endotracheal intubation devices have been improved, and new devices have been developed. These devices are safer and more feasible in clinical practice. In this review, we summarized the features and applications of some of the currently used devices. Each device has its own uniqueness and meets different needs. The devices and their respective properties are strongly suggested to be mastered by the anesthesiologists as well as related staffs, so as to select the appropriate device for intubation.

First-Pass Success of Tracheal Intubation With Videolaryngoscopy in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Registry-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

Background The incidence of difficult airway is higher in head and neck oncological surgery than in other surgeries. Limited evidence is available on the use of videolaryngoscopes in this cohort. A registry database on perioperative management of these patients was set up in our department in 2017. Methods Data from 2018 to 2019 were retrieved from this database. In 128 patients, videolaryngoscopy was used as the initial airway management of choice. Ease of intubation by first-pass success, its association with accessory manoeuvres, and complications were noted. Results Of the patients, 87% (n = 111) were successfully intubated with a videolaryngoscope in the first attempts. There was a strong association between the use of external laryngeal manipulation and successful first-pass intubation with videolaryngoscope. In patients with reduced inter-incisor distance, videolaryngoscope has shown greater benefit. There were very few complications including bleeding from the tumour site and a transient decrease in oxygen saturation to 88% in two patients. Conclusion Videolaryngoscopy was associated with high first-attempt intubation success and we recommend its use as the initial choice for airway management in head and neck cancer patients.

Evaluating the Tactical Combat Casualty Care principles in civilian and military settings: systematic review, knowledge gap analysis and recommendations for future research

OBJECTIVES

The Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC) guidelines detail resuscitation practices in prehospital and austere environments. We sought to review the content and quality of the current TCCC and civilian prehospital literature and characterize knowledge gaps to offer recommendations for future research.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies assessing intervention techniques and devices used in civilian and military prehospital settings that could be applied to TCCC guidelines. Screening and data extraction were performed according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Quality appraisal was conducted using appropriate tools.

RESULTS

Ninety-two percent (n=57) of studies were observational. Most randomized trials had low risk of bias, whereas observational studies had higher risk of bias. Interventions of massive hemorrhage control (n=17) were wound dressings and tourniquets, suggesting effective hemodynamic control. Airway management interventions (n=7) had high success rates with improved outcomes. Interventions of respiratory management (n=12) reported low success with needle decompression. Studies assessing circulation (n=18) had higher quality of evidence and suggested improved outcomes with component hemostatic therapy. Hypothermia prevention interventions (n=2) were generally effective. Other studies identified assessed the use of extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (n=3) and mixed interventions (n=2).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence was largely non-randomized with heterogeneous populations, interventions, and outcomes, precluding robust conclusions in most subjects addressed in the review. Knowledge gaps identified included the use of blood products and concentrate of clotting factors in the prehospital setting.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level III.

Comparison of aerosol box intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy-A randomised controlled trial

Background and Aims:

Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly infectious disease and healthcare workers are at constant risk for contracting it. Nowadays, aerosol box is used in conjunction with WHO-recommended safety kits, to avoid health workers from getting SARS-CoV-2 infection during aerosol-generating procedures. In our study, we compared the ease of oral intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy, when the aerosol box was used. The secondary objectives were to compare the incidence of airway loss, haemodynamic changes, number of attempts, and time required for intubation between these two techniques.

Methods:

This prospective randomised controlled study was conducted on 60 non-coronavirus disease (COVID) patients presenting for elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups:C and D using a computer-generated random sequence of numbers by closed envelope technique. In group D, laryngoscopy was performed with Macintosh blade and in group C, with Storz® C-MAC video laryngoscope.

Results:

The ease of intubation was better (grade 1) in group C than D (68.6% vs. 31.4% respectively) with a P value of < 0.001. 10% of patients required more than one intubation attempt in group D compared to none in group C, but this difference was not statistically significant. The intubation time was comparable between the two groups. There were no incidences of loss of airway or failure to intubate in both groups.

Conclusion:

The use of C-MAC video-laryngoscopy resulted in easier orotracheal intubation as compared to intubation with direct laryngoscopy when the aerosol box was used.