RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Different video-laryngoscopes (VDLs) for endotracheal intubation (ETI) have recently been developed. We compared the performance of the VDL Airway Scope (AWS) with the direct laryngoscopy by Macintosh (DLM) for ETI success, time and learning. METHODS: We performed an experimental manikin controlled study. Twenty experienced (experts) and 40 inexperienced operators (novices) for DLM-ETI were enrolled. None of them had experience with the use of AWS-VDL. Novices were assigned to start learning with DLM or AWS, and two sub-groups of 20 novices were formed. Experts group constituted the control group. Each participant performed 10 ETI attempts with each device on the same standard manikin. The primary endpoint was the ETI success probability. Secondary endpoints were ETI time, technical validity and qualitative evaluation for each technique. We also assessed the learning order and the successive attempts effects for these parameters. RESULTS: Overall, 1200 ETI attempts were performed. ETI success probability was higher with the AWS than with the DLM for all operators (98 vs. 81 %; p < 0.0001) and for experts compared to novices using devices in the same order (97 vs. 83 %; p = 0.0002). Overall ETI time was shorter with the AWS than with the DLM (13 vs. 20 s; p < 0.0001) and for experts compared to novices using devices in the same order (11 vs. 21 s; p < 0.0001). Among novices, those starting learning with AWS had higher ETI success probability (89 vs. 83 %; p = 0.03) and shorter ETI time (18 vs. 21 s; p = 0.02). Technical validity was found better with the AWS than DLM for all operators. Novices expressed global satisfaction and device preference for the AWS, whereas experts were indifferent. CONCLUSIONS: AWS-VDL permits faster, easier and more reliable ETI compared to the DLM whatever the previous airway ETI experience and could be a useful device for DLM-ETI learning.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves the survival of select patients with peritoneal carcinomatosis. Hemophagocytic syndrome (HS) is a rare and potentially fatal disease. We describe our experience with five patients who developed HS following oxaliplatin HIPEC and propose a management procedure. METHODS: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy was performed using the open-abdomen technique (43 °C) with oxaliplatin (460 mg/m (2) ) for 30 min. If thrombocytopenia occurred from days 5 to 14, heparin-induced thrombocytopenia was evaluated. For thrombocytopenia with unknown etiology, we performed a bone marrow analysis (BMA). A BMA indicating HS stimulated an extensive infectious disease workup. Herein, we describe "reactive septic HS" and HS of unknown origin. RESULTS: We documented five patients with HS as a result of severe thrombocytopenia. Underlying infections were present in two patients who were treated with antibiotics and survived. For the remaining three patients, we found no underlying etiology of HS; multidisciplinary staff adapted the clinical management daily. Two patients died on postoperative days 40 and 29. The third patient survived after several operations and treatment with the VAC abdominal dressing system. CONCLUSIONS: We present these cases to ensure that physicians are aware of the symptoms of HS after HIPEC, which are important for initiating immediate life-saving therapy. This condition is a diagnostic and therapeutic emergency. When HS complicates HIPEC, aggressive, early medical, and surgical management is required. However, the optimal management has not been defined.
