A comparison of videolaryngoscopes for tracheal intubation in predicted difficult airway: a feasibility study

Background

Videolaryngoscopy has become increasingly attractive for the routine management of the difficult airway. Glidescope® is well studied in the literature while imago V-Blade® is a recent videolaryngoscope. This is a feasibility study with 1:1 case-control sequential allocation comparing Imago V-Blade ® and Glidescope® in predicted difficult airway settings.

Methods

Two senior anesthesiologists with no clinical experience in video assisted intubation but previously trained in a simulated scenario, performed the endotracheal intubations with Imago V-Blade® and Glidescope®. A third experienced anesthesiologist supervised the procedures. Forty-two patients, 21 for each group, with the presence of predicted difficult airway according to the Italian guideline were included. The primary end point is the feasibility of intubation. The secondary end-points are the success to intubate in the first attempt, the intubation time, the Cormack and Lehane score view, the comparison of the intubation difficulty scale (IDS) score and the need for maneuvers to aid the endotracheal intubation comparing Imago V-Blade® and Glidescope®.

Results

The intubation was achieved in 100% of cases in both groups. No differences were found in the first-attempt success rate (p = 0.383), intubation time (p = 0.280), Cormack and Lehane score view (p = 0.799) and IDS score (p = 0.252). Statistical differences were found in external laryngeal pressure (p = 0.005), advancement of the blade (p = 0.024) and use of increasing lifting force (p = 0.048).

Conclusions

This feasibility study showed that the intubation with the newly introduced Imago V-Blade® is feasible. Further randomized and/or non-inferiority trials are needed to evaluate the benefit of Imago V-Blade® in this procedure.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02897518. Retrospectively registered 25 August 2016

Airway management, procedural data, and in-hospital mortality records of patients undergoing surgery for mucormycosis associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)

PURPOSE

Although unexpected airway difficulties are reported in patients with mucormycosis, the literature on airway management in patients with mucormycosis associated with Coronavirus disease is sparse.

METHODS

In this retrospective case record review of 57 patients who underwent surgery for mucormycosis associated with coronavirus disease, we aimed to evaluate the demographics, airway management, procedural data, and in-hospital mortality records.

RESULTS

Forty-one (71.9%) patients had a diagnosis of sino-nasal mucormycosis, fourteen (24.6%) patients had a diagnosis of rhino-orbital mucormycosis, and 2 (3.5%) patients had a diagnosis of palatal mucormycosis. A total of 44 (77.2%) patients had co-morbidities. The most common co-morbidities were diabetes mellitus in 42 (73.6%) patients, followed by hypertension in 21 (36.8%) patients, and acute kidney injury in 14 (28.1%) patients. We used the intubation difficulty scale score to assess intubating conditions. Intubation was easy to slightly difficult in 53 (92.9%) patients. In our study, mortality occurred in 7 (12.3%) patients. The median (range) mortality time was 60 (27-74) days. The median (range) time to hospital discharge was 53.5 (10-85) days. The median [interquartile range] age of discharged versus expired patients was 47.5 [41,57.5] versus 64 [47,70] years (P = 0.04), and median (interquartile range) D-dimer levels in discharged versus expired patients was 364 [213, 638] versus 2448 [408,3301] ng/mL (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

In patients undergoing surgery for mucormycosis associated with the coronavirus disease, airway management was easy to slightly difficult in most patients. Perioperative complications can be minimized by taking timely and precautionary measures.