SWIVIT--Swiss video-intubation trial evaluating video-laryngoscopes in a simulated difficult airway scenario: study protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial in Switzerland

Lorenz Theiler, Kristina Hermann, Patrick Schoettker, Georges Savoldelli, Natalie Urwyler, Maren Kleine-Brueggeney, Kristopher L Arheart, Robert Greif, Lorenz Theiler, Kristina Hermann, Patrick Schoettker, Georges Savoldelli, Natalie Urwyler, Maren Kleine-Brueggeney, Kristopher L Arheart, Robert Greif

Abstract

Background: Video-laryngoscopes are marketed for intubation in difficult airway management. They provide a better view of the larynx and may facilitate tracheal intubation, but there is no adequately powered study comparing different types of video-laryngoscopes in a difficult airway scenario or in a simulated difficult airway situation.

Methods/design: The objective of this trial is to evaluate and to compare the clinical performance of three video-laryngoscopes with a guiding channel for intubation (Airtraq™, A. P. Advance™, King Vision™) and three video-laryngoscopes without an integrated tracheal tube guidance (C-MAC™, GlideScope™, McGrath™) in a simulated difficult airway situation in surgical patients. The working hypothesis is that each video-laryngoscope provides at least a 90% first intubation success rate (lower limit of the 95% confidence interval >0.9). It is a prospective, patient-blinded, multicenter, randomized controlled trial in 720 patients who are scheduled for elective surgery under general anesthesia, requiring tracheal intubation at one of the three participating hospitals. A difficult airway will be created using an extrication collar and taping the patients' head on the operating table to substantially reduce mouth opening and to minimize neck movement. Tracheal intubation will be performed with the help of one of the six devices according to randomization. Insertion success, time necessary for intubation, Cormack-Lehane grade and percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score at laryngoscopy, optimization maneuvers required to aid tracheal intubation, adverse events and technical problems will be recorded. Primary outcome is intubation success at first attempt.

Discussion: We will simulate the difficult airway and evaluate different video-laryngoscopes in this highly realistic and clinically challenging scenario, independently from manufacturers of the devices. Because of the sufficiently powered multicenter design this study will deliver important and cutting-edge results that will help clinicians decide which device to use for intubation of the expected and unexpected difficult airway.

Trial registration: NCT01692535.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
CONSORT flow diagram.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Study flow chart.

References

    1. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:617–631. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer058.
    1. Maharaj CH, Buckley E, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilization: a comparison of Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes. Anesthesiology. 2007;107:53–59. doi: 10.1097/01.anes.0000267529.71756.f0.
    1. Butchart AG, Tjen C, Garg A, Young P. Paramedic laryngoscopy in the simulated difficult airway: comparison of the Venner A.P. Advance and GlideScope Ranger video laryngoscopes. Acad Emerg Med. 2011;18:692–698. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2011.01115.x.
    1. Cavus E, Neumann T, Doerges V, Moeller T, Scharf E, Wagner K, Bein B, Serocki G. First clinical evaluation of the C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope during routine and difficult intubation. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:382–385. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e31820553fb.
    1. Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R, Brambrink AM. Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:629–636. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318246ea34.
    1. Bathory I, Frascarolo P, Kern C, Schoettker P. Evaluation of the GlideScope for tracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine immobilisation by a semi-rigid collar. Anaesthesia. 2009;64:1337–1341. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06075.x.
    1. Lim Y, Yeo SW. A comparison of the GlideScope with the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated difficult airway. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2005;33:243–247.
    1. Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL, Lee K, Segal R. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:439–443. doi: 10.1093/bja/aes145.
    1. Wetsch WA, Spelten O, Hellmich M, Carlitscheck M, Padosch SA, Lier H, Böttiger BW, Hinkelbein J. Comparison of different video laryngoscopes for emergency intubation in a standardized airway manikin with immobilized cervical spine by experienced anaesthetists. A randomized, controlled crossover trial. Resuscitation. 2012;83:740–745. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.11.024.
    1. Byhahn C, Iber T, Zacharowski K, Weber CF, Ruesseler M, Schalk R, Meininger D. Tracheal intubation using the mobile C-MAC video laryngoscope or direct laryngoscopy for patients with a simulated difficult airway. Minerva Anestesiol. 2010;76:577–583.
    1. McElwain J, Laffey JG. Comparison of the C-MAC(R), Airtraq(R), and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients undergoing tracheal intubation with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:258–264. doi: 10.1093/bja/aer099.
    1. Adnet F, Borron SW, Racine SX, Clemessy JL, Fournier JL, Plaisance P, Lapandry C. The intubation difficulty scale (IDS): proposal and evaluation of a new score characterizing the complexity of endotracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:1290–1297. doi: 10.1097/00000542-199712000-00005.
    1. McElwain J, Simpkin A, Newell J, Laffey JG. Determination of the utility of the Intubation Difficulty Scale for use with indirect laryngoscopes. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:1127–1133. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2011.06891.x.
    1. Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia. 1984;39:1105–1111. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1984.tb08932.x.
    1. Malik MA, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO2, Glidescope, and Airwayscope laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:723–730. doi: 10.1093/bja/aen231.
    1. Levitan RM, Ochroch EA, Kush S, Shofer FS, Hollander JE. Assessment of airway visualization: validation of the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scale. Acad Emerg Med. 1998;5:919–923. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1998.tb02823.x.
    1. Byhahn C, Nemetz S, Breitkreutz R, Zwissler B, Kaufmann M, Meininger D. Brief report: tracheal intubation using the Bonfils intubation fibrescope or direct laryngoscopy for patients with a simulated difficult airway. Can J Anaesth. 2008;55:232–237. doi: 10.1007/BF03021507.
    1. Thong SY, Wong TG. Review article: clinical uses of the Bonfils Retromolar Intubation Fiberscope: a review. Anesth Analg. 2012;115:855–866. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e318265bae2.
    1. Rosenstock CV, Thogersen B, Afshari A, Christensen AL, Eriksen C, Gatke MR. Awake fiberoptic or awake video laryngoscopic tracheal intubation in patients with anticipated difficult airway management: a randomized clinical trial. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:1210–1216. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318254d085.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する