A comparison of hemodynamic changes after endotracheal intubation by the Optiscope™ and the conventional laryngoscope

Duk-Dong Ko, Hyun Kang, So-Young Yang, Hwa-Yong Shin, Chong Wha Baek, Yong Hun Jung, Young-Cheol Woo, Jin-Yun Kim, Gill Hoi Koo, Seong-Deok Kim, Duk-Dong Ko, Hyun Kang, So-Young Yang, Hwa-Yong Shin, Chong Wha Baek, Yong Hun Jung, Young-Cheol Woo, Jin-Yun Kim, Gill Hoi Koo, Seong-Deok Kim

Abstract

Background: Optiscope™ is a newly developed video stylet device. This study evaluated and compared the hemodynamic changes observed after endotracheal intubation with video stylet and after conventional laryngoscopic endotracheal intubation.

Methods: Fifty-eight adult patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status class 1 or 2, undergoing general anesthesia, were randomized into two groups: one group of patients were intubated using video stylet (n = 29) and the other group were intubated using direct laryngoscope (n = 29). Systolic blood pressure (SBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), POGO (percentage of glottic opening) score, time for intubation and degree of sore throat were recorded.

Results: There were no significant differences in the SBP, MAP, DBP, HR, and the sore throat incidence between the two groups. Optiscope™ produced better POGO scores, but time for intubation was longer than with conventional laryngoscope.

Conclusions: Optiscope™, when compared with conventional laryngoscope for intubation, does not modify the hemodynamic response, but it provides a better view of the vocal cords.

Keywords: Bronchoscopes; Endotracheal intubation; Fiberoptics; Hemodynamics; Laryngoscope; Video recording.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Monitor view of entire glottis.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Changes of systolic blood pressure (SBP) before and after intubation (mean ± standard error). Group S: Optiscope using group, Group L: Machintosh laryngoscope using group. Pre: pre-induction value. 1, 3, 5 min: value at 1, 3, 5 minute after intubation. There no significant differences between two groups. *P < 0.05 compared to pre-induction value.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Changes of mean arterial pressure (MAP) before and after intubation (mean ± standard error). Group S: Optiscope using group, Group L: Machintosh laryngoscope using group. Pre: pre-induction value. 1, 3, 5 min: value at 1, 3, 5 minute after intubation. There no significant differences between two groups. *P < 0.05 compared to pre-induction value.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Changes of diatolic blood pressure (DBP) before and after intubation (mean ± standard error). Group S: Optiscope using group, Group L: Machintosh laryngoscope using group. Pre: pre-induction value. 1, 3, 5 min: value at 1, 3, 5 minute after intubation. There no significant differences between two groups. *P < 0.05 compared to pre-induction value.
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Changes of heart rate (HR) before and after intubation (mean ± standard error). Group S: Optiscope using group, Group L: Machintosh laryngoscope using group. Pre: pre-induction value. 1, 3, 5 min: value at 1, 3, 5 minute after intubation. There no significant differences between two groups. *P < 0.05 compared to pre-induction value.

References

    1. Mort TC. Complications of emergency tracheal intubation: hemodynamic alterations - Part I. J Intensive Care Med. 2007;22:157–165.
    1. Shribman AJ, Smith G, Achola KJ. Cardiovascular and catecholamine responses to laryngoscopy with and without tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1987;59:295–299.
    1. Hastings RH, Hon ED, Nghiem C, Wahrenbrock EA. Force, torque, and stress relaxation with direct laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg. 1996;82:456–461.
    1. Takahashi S, Mizutani T, Miyabe M, Toyooka H. Hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation with laryngoscope versus lightwand intubating device (Trachlight®) in adults with normal airway. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:480–484.
    1. Yun JH, Lee DH. A comparison of hemodynamic changes after endotracheal intubation by using the Bonfils intubation fiberscope and the laryngoscope. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2006;51:547–551.
    1. Kitamura T, Yamada Y, Chinzei M, Du HL, Hanaoka K. Attenuation of haemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation by the styletscope. Br J Anaesth. 2001;86:275–277.
    1. Kihara S, Brimacombe J, Yaguchi Y, Wanatabe S, Taguchi N, Komatsuzaki T. Hemodynamic responses among three tracheal intubation devices in normotensive and hypertensive patients. Anesth Analg. 2003;96:890–895.
    1. Hirabayashi Y, Hiruta M, Kawakami T, Inoue S, Fukuda H, Saitoh K, et al. Effects of lightwand (Trachlight) compared with direct laryngoscopy on circulatory responses to tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1998;81:253–255.
    1. Ochroch EA, Hollander JE, Kush S, Shofer FS, Levitan RM. Assessment of laryngeal view: percentage of glottis opening score vs Cormack and Lehane grading. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:987–990.
    1. Park SY, Kim ST, Shin YD. The effect of tracheal intubation with the Levitan FPS scope or Macintosh larynogoscope on the arterial pressure and heart rate. Anesth Pain Med. 2010;5:125–129.
    1. Corbanese U, Morossi M. The Bonfils intubation fibrescope: clinical evaluation and consideration of the learning curve. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26:622–624.
    1. Bein B, Yan M, Tonner PH, Scholz J, Steinfath M, Dörges V. Tracheal intubation using the Bonfils intubation fiberscope after failed direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia. 2004;59:1207–1209.
    1. Kim SH, Woo SJ, Kim JH. A comparison of Bonfils intubation fiberscopy and fiberoptic bronchoscopy in difficult airways assisted with direct laryngoscopy. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2010;58:249–255.
    1. Weiss M, Schwarz U, Gerber AC. Difficult airway management: comparison of the Bullard laryngoscope with the video-optical intubation stylet. Can J Anaesth. 2000;47:280–284.
    1. Liem EB, Bjoraker DG, Gravenstein D. New options for airway management: intubating fiberoptic stylets. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:408–418.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit