The Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association and Difficult Airway Society have developed the first national obstetric guidelines for the safe management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation during general anaesthesia. They comprise four algorithms and two tables. A master algorithm provides an overview. Algorithm 1 gives a framework on how to optimise a safe general anaesthetic technique in the obstetric patient, and emphasises: planning and multidisciplinary communication; how to prevent the rapid oxygen desaturation seen in pregnant women by advocating nasal oxygenation and mask ventilation immediately after induction; limiting intubation attempts to two; and consideration of early release of cricoid pressure if difficulties are encountered. Algorithm 2 summarises the management after declaring failed tracheal intubation with clear decision points, and encourages early insertion of a (preferably second-generation) supraglottic airway device if appropriate. Algorithm 3 covers the management of the 'can't intubate, can't oxygenate' situation and emergency front-of-neck airway access, including the necessity for timely perimortem caesarean section if maternal oxygenation cannot be achieved. Table 1 gives a structure for assessing the individual factors relevant in the decision to awaken or proceed should intubation fail, which include: urgency related to maternal or fetal factors; seniority of the anaesthetist; obesity of the patient; surgical complexity; aspiration risk; potential difficulty with provision of alternative anaesthesia; and post-induction airway device and airway patency. This decision should be considered by the team in advance of performing a general anaesthetic to make a provisional plan should failed intubation occur. The table is also intended to be used as a teaching tool to facilitate discussion and learning regarding the complex nature of decision-making when faced with a failed intubation. Table 2 gives practical considerations of how to awaken or proceed with surgery. The background paper covers recommendations on drugs, new equipment, teaching and training.

/pdf/obstetric-anaesthetists-association-and-difficult-airway-4p42qzete6.pdf

Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association and Difficult Airway Society guidelines for the management of difficult and failed tracheal intubation in obstetrics

Introduction: The Glidescope video laryngoscope has been shown to be a useful tool to improve laryngeal view. However, its role in the daily routine of airway management remains poorly characterized. Methods: This investigation evaluated the use of the Glidescope at two academic medical centers. Electronic records from 71,570 intubations were reviewed, and 2,004 cases were indentified where the Glidescope was used for airway management. WeanalyzedthesuccessrateofGlidescopeintubationinvarious intubationscenarios.Inaddition,theincidenceandcharacterof complications associated with Glidescope use were recorded. PredictorsofGlidescopeintubationfailureweredeterminedus

/pdf/routine-clinical-practice-effectiveness-of-the-glidescope-in-51lz89nswo.pdf

Routine clinical practice effectiveness of the Glidescope in difficult airway management: an analysis of 2,004 Glidescope intubations, complications, and failures from two institutions.

Background
Successful tracheal intubation during general anaesthesia traditionally requires a line of sight to the larynx attained by positioning the head and neck and using a laryngoscope to retract the tongue and soft tissues of the floor of the mouth. Difficulties with intubation commonly arise, and alternative laryngoscopes that use digital and/or fibreoptic technology have been designed to improve visibility when airway difficulty is predicted or encountered. Among these devices, a rigid videolaryngoscope (VLS) uses a blade to retract the soft tissues and transmits a lighted video image to a screen.

Objectives
Our primary objective was to assess whether use of videolaryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in adults requiring general anaesthesia reduces risks of complications and failure compared with direct laryngoscopy. Our secondary aim was to assess the benefits and risks of these devices in selected population groups, such as adults with obesity and those with a known or predicted difficult airway.

Search methods
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase on 10 February 2015. Our search terms were relevant to the review question and were not limited by outcomes. We carried out clinical trials register searches and forward and backward citation tracking. We reran the search on 12 January 2016; we added potential new studies of interest from the 2016 search to a list of 'Studies awaiting classification', and we will incorporate these studies into the formal review during the review update.

Selection criteria
We considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized studies with adult patients undergoing laryngoscopy performed with a VLS or a Macintosh laryngoscope in a clinical, emergency or out-of-hospital setting. We included parallel and cross-over study designs.

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting a third review author to resolve disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias.

Main results
We included 64 studies identified during the 2015 search that enrolled 7044 adult participants and compared a VLS of one or more designs with a Macintosh laryngoscope. We identified 38 studies awaiting classification and seven ongoing studies. Of the 64 included studies, 61 included elective surgical patients, and three were conducted in an emergency setting. Among 48 studies that included participants without a predicted difficult airway, 15 used techniques to simulate a difficult airway. Seven recruited participants with a known or predicted difficult airway, and the remaining studies did not specify or included both predicted and not predicted difficult airways. Only two studies specifically recruited obese participants. It was not possible to blind the intubator to the device, and we noted a high level of inevitable heterogeneity, given the large number of studies.

Statistically significantly fewer failed intubations were reported when a VLS was used (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) odds ratio (OR), random-effects 0.35, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.65; 38 studies; 4127 participants), and fewer failed intubations occurred when a VLS was used in participants with an anticipated difficult airway (M-H OR, random-effects 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.55; six studies; 830 participants). We graded the quality of this evidence as moderate on the basis of the GRADE system. Failed intubations were fewer when a VLS was used in participants with a simulated difficult airway (M-H OR, random-effects 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.77; nine studies; 810 participants), but groups with no predicted difficult airway provided no significant results (M-H OR, random-effects 0.61, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.67; 19 studies; 1743 participants).

Eight studies reported on hypoxia, and only three of these described any events; results showed no differences between devices for this outcome (M-H OR, random-effects 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.44; 1319 participants). Similarly, few studies reported on mortality, noting no differences between devices (M-H OR, fixed-effect 1.09, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.82; two studies; 663 participants), and only one study reporting on the occurrence of respiratory complications (78 participants); we graded these three outcomes as very low quality owing to lack of data. We found no statistically significant differences between devices in the proportion of successful first attempts (M-H OR, random-effects 1.27, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.09; 36 studies; 4731 participants) nor in those needing more than one attempt. We graded the quality of this evidence as moderate. Studies reported no statistically significant differences in the incidence of sore throat in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) (M-H OR, random-effects 1.00 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.38); 10 studies; 1548 participants) nor at 24 hours postoperatively (M-H OR random-effects 0.54, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07; eight studies; 844 participants); we graded the quality of this evidence as moderate. Data combined to include studies of cross-over design revealed statistically significantly fewer laryngeal or airway traumas (M-H OR, random-effects 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.96; 29 studies; 3110 participants) and fewer incidences of postoperative hoarseness (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.88; six studies; 527 participants) when a VLS was used. A greater number of laryngoscopies performed with a VLS achieved a view of most of the glottis (M-H OR, random-effects 6.77, 95% CI 4.17 to 10.98; 22 studies; 2240 participants), fewer laryngoscopies performed with a VLS achieved no view of the glottis (M-H OR, random-effects 0.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.27; 22 studies; 2240 participants) and the VLS was easier to use (M-H OR, random-effects 7.13, 95% CI 3.12 to 16.31; seven studies; 568 participants).

Although a large number of studies reported time required for tracheal intubation (55 studies; 6249 participants), we did not present an effects estimate for this outcome owing to the extremely high level of statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 96%).

Authors' conclusions
Videolaryngoscopes may reduce the number of failed intubations, particularly among patients presenting with a difficult airway. They improve the glottic view and may reduce laryngeal/airway trauma. Currently, no evidence indicates that use of a VLS reduces the number of intubation attempts or the incidence of hypoxia or respiratory complications, and no evidence indicates that use of a VLS affects time required for intubation.

/pdf/videolaryngoscopy-versus-direct-laryngoscopy-for-adult-5f9sbrrh0l.pdf

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation

Introduction
The Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy appears to provide better glottic visualization than direct laryngoscopy. However, it remains unclear if it translates into increased success with intubation.

/pdf/glidescope-video-laryngoscopy-versus-direct-laryngoscopy-for-2fnc7qm19z.pdf

Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The aim of the present paper is to review the literature regarding video-laryngoscopes (Storz V-Mac and C-Mac, Glidescope, McGrath, Pentax-Airway Scope, Airtraq and Bullard) and discuss their clinical role in airway management. Video-laryngoscopes are new intubation devices, which provide an indirect view of the upper airway. In difficult airway management, they improve Cormack-Lehane grade and achieve the same or a higher intubation success rate in less time, compared with direct laryngoscopes. Despite the very good visualization of the glottis, the insertion and advancement of the endotracheal tube with video-laryngoscopes may occasionally fail. Each particular device's features may offer advantages or disadvantages, depending on the situation the anaesthesiologist has to deal with. So far, there is inconclusive evidence indicating that video-laryngoscopy should replace direct laryngoscopy in patients with normal or difficult airways.

/pdf/video-laryngoscopes-in-the-adult-airway-management-a-topical-4mqgu4ycic.pdf

Video-laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: a topical review of the literature

Background. The GlideScope® Video Laryngoscope is a new intubating device. It was designed to provide a view of the glottis without alignment of the oral, pharyngeal and tracheal axes. The aim of the study was to describe the use of the GlideScope® in comparison with direct laryngoscopy for elective surgical patients requiring tracheal intubation. Methods. Two hundred patients were randomly assigned to intubation by direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh size 3 blade (DL, n=100) or intubation using the GlideScope® (GS, n=100). Prior to intubation all patients were given a Cormack and Lehane (C&L) grade by a separate anaesthetist using a Macintosh size 3 blade. The patient was then intubated, using direct laryngoscopy or the GlideScope®, by a different anaesthetist during which the larynx was inspected and given a laryngoscopy score. Time to intubate was measured. Results. In the GS group, laryngoscopy grade was improved in the majority (28/41) of patients with C&L grade >1 and in all but one of patients who were grade 3 laryngoscopy (P Conclusion. In most patients, the GlideScope® provided a laryngoscopic view equal to or better than that of direct laryngoscopy, but it took an additional 16 s (average) for tracheal intubation. It has potential advantages over standard direct laryngoscopy for difficult intubations.

The GlideScope® Video Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients

Background. The GlideScopeVideo Laryngoscope is a new intubating device. It was designed to provide a view of the glottis without alignment of the oral, pharyngeal and tracheal axes. The aim of the study was to describe the use of the GlideScopein comparison with direct laryngo- scopy for elective surgical patients requiring tracheal intubation. Methods. Two hundred patients were randomly assigned to intubation by direct laryngoscopy using a Macintosh size 3 blade (DL,n=100) or intubation using the GlideScope � (GS,n=100). Prior to intubation all patients were given a Cormack and Lehane (C&L) grade by a separate anaesthetist using a Macintosh size 3 blade. The patient was then intubated, using direct laryngoscopy or the GlideScope � , by a different anaesthetist during which the larynx was inspected and given a laryngoscopy score. Time to intubate was measured. Results. In the GS group, laryngoscopy grade was improved in the majority (28/41) of patients with C&L grade >1 and in all but one of patients who were grade 3 laryngoscopy (P<0.001). The overall mean time to intubate was 30 (95% CI 28-33) s in the DL group and 46 (95% CI 43-49) s in the GS group. The time to intubate for C&L grade 3 was similar in both groups, being 47 s for the DL group and 50 s for the GS group respectively. Conclusion. In most patients, the GlideScopeprovided a laryngoscopic view equal to or better than that of direct laryngoscopy, but it took an additional 16 s (average) for tracheal intubation. It has potential advantages over standard direct laryngoscopy for difficult intubations.

M. Moult

Papers

The GlideScope® Video Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients

RESPIRATION AND THE AIRWAY The GlideScopeVideo Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients