Comparison of glottic visualisation through supraglottic airway device (SAD) using bronchoscope in the ramped versus supine 'sniffing air' position: A pilot feasibility study.
Airway management
feasibility studies
intratracheal
intubation
obesity
patient positioning
Journal
Indian journal of anaesthesia
ISSN: 0019-5049
Titre abrégé: Indian J Anaesth
Pays: India
ID NLM: 0013243
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Aug 2020
Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
07
04
2020
revised:
21
04
2020
accepted:
03
06
2020
entrez:
16
9
2020
pubmed:
17
9
2020
medline:
17
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Airway management in obese patients is associated with increased risk of difficult airway and intubation. After failed intubation, supraglottic airway-guided flexible bronchoscopic intubation (SAGFBI) may be required. It is uncertain whether SAGFBI is best performed in the ramped versus conventional supine "sniffing air" position. We conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the logistics of positioning, compared glottic views, and evaluated SAGFBI success rates. We conducted a prospective, pilot study in patients with a body mass index (BMI) 30-40 kg/m Of 17 patients recruited, 15 patients were repositioned successfully. There were no differences in glottic views observed in the two positions. SAGFBI was successful in 92.9% of patients (median time 91.5 s). Haemodynamic changes were noted in 42.7% of patients which resolved spontaneously. Our pilot study was completed within 5 months, achieved low dropout rate and protocol feasibility was established. SAGFBI was successfully and safely performed in obese patients, with a median time of 91.5 s. The time taken for SAGFBI was similar to awake intubation using FBI and videolaryngoscopy. Our study provided preliminary data supporting future, larger-scale studies to evaluate glottic views in the ramped versus supine positions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND AIMS
OBJECTIVE
Airway management in obese patients is associated with increased risk of difficult airway and intubation. After failed intubation, supraglottic airway-guided flexible bronchoscopic intubation (SAGFBI) may be required. It is uncertain whether SAGFBI is best performed in the ramped versus conventional supine "sniffing air" position. We conducted a feasibility study to evaluate the logistics of positioning, compared glottic views, and evaluated SAGFBI success rates.
METHODS
METHODS
We conducted a prospective, pilot study in patients with a body mass index (BMI) 30-40 kg/m
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 17 patients recruited, 15 patients were repositioned successfully. There were no differences in glottic views observed in the two positions. SAGFBI was successful in 92.9% of patients (median time 91.5 s). Haemodynamic changes were noted in 42.7% of patients which resolved spontaneously.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our pilot study was completed within 5 months, achieved low dropout rate and protocol feasibility was established. SAGFBI was successfully and safely performed in obese patients, with a median time of 91.5 s. The time taken for SAGFBI was similar to awake intubation using FBI and videolaryngoscopy. Our study provided preliminary data supporting future, larger-scale studies to evaluate glottic views in the ramped versus supine positions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32934402
doi: 10.4103/ija.IJA_320_20
pii: IJA-64-681
pmc: PMC7457982
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
681-687Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2020 Indian Journal of Anaesthesia.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
PW has received airway equipment for evaluation and research from numerous companies, and has lectured at conferences and symposiums sponsored by Ambu. He has no financial interest in any airway company.
Références
Anaesthesia. 2019 Feb;74(2):151-157
pubmed: 30288736
Obes Surg. 2004 Oct;14(9):1171-5
pubmed: 15527629
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Jul;121(1):159-171
pubmed: 29935567
Anaesthesia. 1984 Nov;39(11):1105-11
pubmed: 6507827
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2019 Feb;63(2):187-194
pubmed: 30088266
Indian J Anaesth. 2017 May;61(5):398-403
pubmed: 28584349
Clin Trials. 2014 Oct;11(5):590-600
pubmed: 24902924
Anaesthesia. 2006 Sep;61(9):845-8
pubmed: 16922750
Can J Anaesth. 2012 Oct;59(10):974-96
pubmed: 22833138
Anaesthesia. 2015 Nov;70(11):1286-306
pubmed: 26449292
Br J Anaesth. 2011 Aug;107(2):251-7
pubmed: 21652616
Indian J Anaesth. 2018 May;62(5):350-358
pubmed: 29910492
J Clin Anesth. 2017 May;38:83-84
pubmed: 28372690
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019 Dec;72(6):548-557
pubmed: 31475506
Anesth Analg. 1991 Jan;72(1):89-93
pubmed: 1984382
Chest. 2017 Oct;152(4):712-722
pubmed: 28487139
J Clin Anesth. 2012 Mar;24(2):104-8
pubmed: 22301204
Br J Anaesth. 2004 Jun;92(6):870-81
pubmed: 15121723
Anaesthesia. 2002 Feb;57(2):128-32
pubmed: 11871949
Anaesth Intensive Care. 2018 Jan;46(1):11-12
pubmed: 29361251