Anesthesiology · 2008
Success of tracheal intubation with intubating laryngeal mask airways: a randomized trial of the LMA Fastrach and LMA CTrach.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Liu Eugene H, Goy Raymond W, Lim Yvonne, Chen Fun-Gee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The LMA CTrach system (The Laryngeal Mask Company, Singapore) is a development of the LMA Fastrach system (The Laryngeal Mask Company, Singapore), with integrated fiberoptic bundles and a detachable liquid crystal display viewer. This randomized study of 271 patients compared tracheal intubation with these two systems.
METHODS: In both groups, ventilation was optimized after insertion of the laryngeal mask conduit before proceeding further: intubation with the LMA Fastrach, and optimizing the conduit placement and view and then intubation with the LMA CTrach. The first-attempt and overall success rates of tracheal intubation, and the times required, were recorded.
RESULTS: Tracheal intubation was successful on the first attempt in 93.3% of patients with the LMA CTrach and 67.9% of patients with the LMA Fastrach (P < 0.001). The success rates within three attempts were 100% with the LMA CTrach and 96.4% with the LMA Fastrach (P = 0.06). The median (interquartile range) time for the complete tracheal intubation process was 116 (82-156) s with the LMA CTrachand 100 (74-121) s with the LMA Fastrach (P = 0.002). There was no correlation between the grade of conventional laryngoscopy and success of intubation with either system.
CONCLUSIONS: The ability to view the glottis and optimize placement of the LMA CTrach under vision enabled a higher first-attempt success rate of tracheal intubation with the LMA CTrach. However, more time is required with the LMA CTrach, there are failed views in some patients, and its cost effectiveness remains unclear.
METHODS: In both groups, ventilation was optimized after insertion of the laryngeal mask conduit before proceeding further: intubation with the LMA Fastrach, and optimizing the conduit placement and view and then intubation with the LMA CTrach. The first-attempt and overall success rates of tracheal intubation, and the times required, were recorded.
RESULTS: Tracheal intubation was successful on the first attempt in 93.3% of patients with the LMA CTrach and 67.9% of patients with the LMA Fastrach (P < 0.001). The success rates within three attempts were 100% with the LMA CTrach and 96.4% with the LMA Fastrach (P = 0.06). The median (interquartile range) time for the complete tracheal intubation process was 116 (82-156) s with the LMA CTrachand 100 (74-121) s with the LMA Fastrach (P = 0.002). There was no correlation between the grade of conventional laryngoscopy and success of intubation with either system.
CONCLUSIONS: The ability to view the glottis and optimize placement of the LMA CTrach under vision enabled a higher first-attempt success rate of tracheal intubation with the LMA CTrach. However, more time is required with the LMA CTrach, there are failed views in some patients, and its cost effectiveness remains unclear.