ABSTRACT
Background and Aims: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS CoV-2) is an infectious disease. The use of video laryngoscopes is recommended for intubation of patients with COVID-19. But in resource-poor countries, it is rare to have video laryngoscopes available. In this trial, we have compared the ease of oral intubation by direct laryngoscopy with styletted endotracheal tube and intubation over the bougie, with the use of the aerosol box. The secondary objectives were comparison of the incidence of airway loss, attempts taken to intubate, time for intubation and hemodynamic changes. Material and Methods: 80 non-coronavirus infected patients coming for an elective procedure under general anesthesia were recruited in this randomized control trial. Participants were assigned into groups S and B using a computer-generated random sequence of numbers by closed envelope technique. In both groups, aerosol box was used. In Group S, participants were intubated by direct laryngoscopy with a styletted endotracheal tube and in group B, after direct laryngoscopy, the endotracheal tube was railroaded over the bougie. Results: Ease of endotracheal intubation was good (67.5%% vs. 45%), satisfactory (32.5%% vs. 37.5%), and poor (0% vs. 17.5%) in group S and B respectively (P < 0.011). The attempts required for intubation were similar in both groups. The time for intubation was significantly less in group S than B (23 vs. 55 s). Conclusion: The use of a styletted endotracheal tube made intubation easier and faster than tracheal intubation with bougie when the aerosol box was used in patients without known or predicted difficult airway and significant medical comorbidities.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly infectious disease and healthcare workers are at constant risk for contracting it. Nowadays, aerosol box is used in conjunction with WHO-recommended safety kits, to avoid health workers from getting SARS-CoV-2 infection during aerosol-generating procedures. In our study, we compared the ease of oral intubation with C-MAC video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy, when the aerosol box was used. The secondary objectives were to compare the incidence of airway loss, haemodynamic changes, number of attempts, and time required for intubation between these two techniques. METHODS: This prospective randomised controlled study was conducted on 60 non-coronavirus disease (COVID) patients presenting for elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Patients were randomly assigned into two groups:C and D using a computer-generated random sequence of numbers by closed envelope technique. In group D, laryngoscopy was performed with Macintosh blade and in group C, with Storz® C-MAC video laryngoscope. RESULTS: The ease of intubation was better (grade 1) in group C than D (68.6% vs. 31.4% respectively) with a P value of < 0.001. 10% of patients required more than one intubation attempt in group D compared to none in group C, but this difference was not statistically significant. The intubation time was comparable between the two groups. There were no incidences of loss of airway or failure to intubate in both groups. CONCLUSION: The use of C-MAC video-laryngoscopy resulted in easier orotracheal intubation as compared to intubation with direct laryngoscopy when the aerosol box was used.