Effect of Cricoid Pressure Compared With a Sham Procedure in the Rapid Sequence Induction of Anesthesia: The IRIS Randomized Clinical Trial.
Anesthesia
/ adverse effects
Cricoid Cartilage
/ physiology
Double-Blind Method
Female
Humans
Intubation, Intratracheal
/ statistics & numerical data
Laryngoscopy
/ statistics & numerical data
Length of Stay
/ statistics & numerical data
Male
Middle Aged
Operative Time
Pneumonia, Aspiration
/ etiology
Pressure
Treatment Outcome
Journal
JAMA surgery
ISSN: 2168-6262
Titre abrégé: JAMA Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101589553
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 01 2019
01 01 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
23
10
2018
medline:
26
11
2019
entrez:
23
10
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The use of cricoid pressure (Sellick maneuver) during rapid sequence induction (RSI) of anesthesia remains controversial in the absence of a large randomized trial. To test the hypothesis that the incidence of pulmonary aspiration is not increased when cricoid pressure is not performed. Randomized, double-blind, noninferiority trial conducted in 10 academic centers. Patients undergoing anesthesia with RSI were enrolled from February 2014 until February 2017 and followed up for 28 days or until hospital discharge (last follow-up, February 8, 2017). Patients were assigned to a cricoid pressure (Sellick group) or a sham procedure group. Primary end point was the incidence of pulmonary aspiration (at the glottis level during laryngoscopy or by tracheal aspiration after intubation). It was hypothesized that the sham procedure would not be inferior to the cricoid pressure. The secondary end points were related to pulmonary aspiration, difficult tracheal intubation, and traumatic complications owing to the tracheal intubation or cricoid pressure. Of 3472 patients randomized, mean (SD) age was 51 (19) years and 1777 (51%) were men. The primary end point, pulmonary aspiration, occurred in 10 patients (0.6%) in the Sellick group and in 9 patients (0.5%) in the sham group. The upper limit of the 1-sided 95% CI of relative risk was 2.00, exceeding 1.50, failing to demonstrate noninferiority (P = .14). The risk difference was -0.06% (2-sided 95% CI, -0.57 to 0.42) in the intent-to-treat population and -0.06% (2-sided 95% CI, -0.56 to 0.43) in the per protocol population. Secondary end points were not significantly different among the 2 groups (pneumonia, length of stay, and mortality), although the comparison of the Cormack and Lehane grade (Grades 3 and 4, 10% vs 5%; P <.001) and the longer intubation time (Intubation time >30 seconds, 47% vs 40%; P <.001) suggest an increased difficulty of tracheal intubation in the Sellick group. This large randomized clinical trial performed in patients undergoing anesthesia with RSI failed to demonstrate the noninferiority of the sham procedure in preventing pulmonary aspiration. Further studies are required in pregnant women and outside the operating room. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02080754.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30347104
pii: 2708019
doi: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.3577
pmc: PMC6439856
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT02080754']
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Equivalence Trial
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
9-17Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Type : CommentIn
Références
Anesthesiology. 2017 Apr;126(4):738-752
pubmed: 28045709
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1986 Jan;30(1):84-92
pubmed: 3754372
Lancet. 1961 Aug 19;2(7199):404-6
pubmed: 13749923
Anesth Analg. 1996 Oct;83(4):859-63
pubmed: 8831335
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 18;(11):CD011656
pubmed: 26578526
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Feb;120(2):323-352
pubmed: 29406182
Anesthesiology. 2003 Jul;99(1):60-4
pubmed: 12826843
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2000 Jul;17(7):443-7
pubmed: 10964146
JAMA. 2006 Mar 8;295(10):1152-60
pubmed: 16522836
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2012 Aug;107(2):308-14
pubmed: 22133716
Anesthesiology. 1993 Jan;78(1):56-62
pubmed: 8424572
J Clin Anesth. 2015 Aug;27(5):396-400
pubmed: 25935831
Br J Anaesth. 2000 Mar;84(3):394-5
pubmed: 10793602
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Oct 29;(10):CD002788
pubmed: 26512948
Clin Respir J. 2018 Jan;12(1):175-182
pubmed: 27273863
Anesthesiology. 1997 Jan;86(1):7-9
pubmed: 9009934
Anesthesiology. 2000 May;92(5):1229-36
pubmed: 10781266
Anesthesiology. 2012 Dec;117(6):1223-33
pubmed: 23135259
Br J Anaesth. 1996 Jun;76(6):877-8
pubmed: 8679368
Can Anaesth Soc J. 1985 Jul;32(4):429-34
pubmed: 4027773
Anesthesiology. 2011 Jan;114(1):42-8
pubmed: 21150574
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2003 Oct;22(8):745-9
pubmed: 14584485
Anaesthesia. 1991 Jan;46(1):40-1
pubmed: 1996754
J Clin Anesth. 1991 Sep-Oct;3(5):403-5
pubmed: 1931067
Minerva Anestesiol. 2014 Mar;80(3):382-92
pubmed: 24122033
Anesthesiology. 2005 Feb;102(2):315-9
pubmed: 15681945
Anaesthesia. 1988 Sep;43(9):788-91
pubmed: 3177859
Anesthesiology. 2011 Mar;114(3):495-511
pubmed: 21307770
Anaesthesia. 1984 Nov;39(11):1105-11
pubmed: 6507827
Anesthesiology. 2006 Jan;104(1):60-4
pubmed: 16394691
Control Clin Trials. 1982 Dec;3(4):345-53
pubmed: 7160191