[A Randomized Control Study Comparing the Effects of Tracheal Intubation Performed either via the McGRATH® MAC or the Macintosh Laryngoscope].

Naomitsu Murayama, Jun Yoshino, Naoyuki Fujimura
{"title":"[A Randomized Control Study Comparing the Effects of Tracheal Intubation Performed either via the McGRATH® MAC or the Macintosh Laryngoscope].","authors":"Naomitsu Murayama,&nbsp;Jun Yoshino,&nbsp;Naoyuki Fujimura","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The McGRATH® MAC (McGRATH) laryngoscope is a newly developed video device, which enables us to perform tracheal intubation minimally invasive. The aim of this study is to evaluate and com- pare the hemodynamic changes triggered by intuba- tion using either the McGRATH or the Macintosh laryngoscope.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-seven patients, between 20 and 42 years of age with ASA status I or II, were randomly assigned to two groups : the McGRATH (n=19) or the Macintosh laryngoscope (n=18). Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl 2 μg · kg⁻¹, propofol 2 mg · kg⁻¹, sevoflurane 2%, and rocuronium 0.6 mg · kg⁻¹. We recoded the hemodynamic changes (blood pressure, heart rate) every minute up to 5 minute after intuba- tion. We also recoded the time needed to complete the tracheal intubation. In all cases, the same certified anesthesiologist performed tracheal intubation. Data were presented as mean ± SD. Statistical analyses were performed using the t-test for comparisons of the patients' demographic data, blood pressure, and heart rate between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in two groups regarding age, weight, height, and sex. Comparing the average time needed to complete the tracheal intubation, the McGRATH group took longer than Macintosh group (40.5 ± 15.3 seconds vs. 29.4? 4.73 seconds, P=0.01). There was no significant differ- ence in blood pressure and heart rate just before tra- cheal intubation. The McGRATH laryngoscope had a significantly lower value than the Macintosh laryngo- scope in systolic pressure (101.2?7.9 vs. 111 ?16.8 mmHg, P=0.03) and heart rate (71.5?9.9 vs. 79.7? 12.3 mmHg, P=0.02) at one minute after tracheal intu- bation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The McGRATH laryngoscope is less invasive for hemodynamic parameters than the Macin- tosh laryngoscope. These findings suggest that the McGRATH laryngoscope may enable us to perform tracheal intubation less invasively.</p>","PeriodicalId":18254,"journal":{"name":"Masui. The Japanese journal of anesthesiology","volume":"66 2","pages":"160-163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Masui. The Japanese journal of anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The McGRATH® MAC (McGRATH) laryngoscope is a newly developed video device, which enables us to perform tracheal intubation minimally invasive. The aim of this study is to evaluate and com- pare the hemodynamic changes triggered by intuba- tion using either the McGRATH or the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Methods: Thirty-seven patients, between 20 and 42 years of age with ASA status I or II, were randomly assigned to two groups : the McGRATH (n=19) or the Macintosh laryngoscope (n=18). Anesthesia was induced with fentanyl 2 μg · kg⁻¹, propofol 2 mg · kg⁻¹, sevoflurane 2%, and rocuronium 0.6 mg · kg⁻¹. We recoded the hemodynamic changes (blood pressure, heart rate) every minute up to 5 minute after intuba- tion. We also recoded the time needed to complete the tracheal intubation. In all cases, the same certified anesthesiologist performed tracheal intubation. Data were presented as mean ± SD. Statistical analyses were performed using the t-test for comparisons of the patients' demographic data, blood pressure, and heart rate between groups.

Results: There were no significant differences in two groups regarding age, weight, height, and sex. Comparing the average time needed to complete the tracheal intubation, the McGRATH group took longer than Macintosh group (40.5 ± 15.3 seconds vs. 29.4? 4.73 seconds, P=0.01). There was no significant differ- ence in blood pressure and heart rate just before tra- cheal intubation. The McGRATH laryngoscope had a significantly lower value than the Macintosh laryngo- scope in systolic pressure (101.2?7.9 vs. 111 ?16.8 mmHg, P=0.03) and heart rate (71.5?9.9 vs. 79.7? 12.3 mmHg, P=0.02) at one minute after tracheal intu- bation.

Conclusions: The McGRATH laryngoscope is less invasive for hemodynamic parameters than the Macin- tosh laryngoscope. These findings suggest that the McGRATH laryngoscope may enable us to perform tracheal intubation less invasively.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[一项随机对照研究比较通过McGRATH®MAC或Macintosh喉镜进行气管插管的效果]。
背景:McGRATH®MAC (McGRATH)喉镜是一种新开发的视频设备,使我们能够进行微创气管插管。本研究的目的是评估和比较使用McGRATH或Macintosh喉镜插管引起的血流动力学变化。方法:37例年龄在20 ~ 42岁,ASA状态为I或II的患者,随机分为McGRATH组(n=19)和Macintosh喉镜组(n=18)。麻醉:芬太尼2 μg·kg⁻¹,异丙酚2 mg·kg⁻¹,七氟醚2%,罗库溴铵0.6 mg·kg⁻¹。我们每分钟记录一次血流动力学变化(血压、心率),直至插管后5分钟。我们还记录了完成气管插管所需的时间。在所有病例中,由同一名认证麻醉师进行气管插管。数据以mean±SD表示。采用t检验进行统计学分析,比较两组患者的人口统计学数据、血压和心率。结果:两组患者年龄、体重、身高、性别差异无统计学意义。比较完成气管插管所需的平均时间,McGRATH组比Macintosh组(40.5±15.3秒vs 29.4?4.73秒,P=0.01)。经气管插管前两组血压和心率无显著差异。McGRATH喉镜在收缩压(101.2?7.9 vs 111 ?16.8 mmHg, P=0.03)和心率(71.5?9.9 vs 79.7?12.3 mmHg, P=0.02)。结论:McGRATH喉镜对血流动力学参数的影响小于Macin- tosh喉镜。这些发现表明,McGRATH喉镜可以使我们进行气管插管的侵入性更小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
[Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy]. Point-of-care Lung Ultrasound. Point-of-care Abdominal Ultrasound. Vascular Access and Diagnosis of Venous Thrombosis. The PEAS Protocol, an Airway Ultrasound Technique.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1