Is there an optimal place for holding the tracheal tube during intubation? A proof-of-concept randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal way to hold an endotracheal tube (ETT) during intubation has not been studied. In this randomised clinical trial, we examined the effect of site-holding the ETT in two different positions on time and ease of intubation by anaesthesia trainees. METHODS: A single-centre, randomised trial of intubations of stable patients with uncomplicated airways was conducted from 15 September 2019 to 31 May 2021 in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, India. A previous pilot study performed in the unit determined the comparator positions for the ETT and the sample size for a 20% difference for the primary outcome of mean time to intubation (TTI). Patients were randomised at the time of the intubation; anaesthesia trainees held the ETT at 19 or 24 cm according to the patient's assignment. Video recordings of intubations were independently reviewed by two assessors blinded to the assignment. Secondary outcomes were intubation success, ease of intubation and complications. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS: 360 adults were randomised (180/arm) and intubated by 19 trainees. In intention-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference in TTI. Sixteen times, trainees assigned to hold the ETT at 24 cm moved their grip distally (closer to the cuff) during the procedure. In a per-protocol analysis, TTI for those whose grip remained at 24 cm was shorter than those holding at 19 cm: 6.6 (SD 3.0) vs 7.6 (SD 4.2) s (95% CI for the difference 0.2 to 1.7 s), p=0.01. In both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses, there was no difference in first-pass success or ease of intubation between techniques. Eight patients assigned to 19 cm group and four assigned to 24 cm developed sore throats. CONCLUSION: In stable patients with uncomplicated airways, there was no significant difference in TTI based on the site at which trainees were assigned to hold the ETT. However, the shorter TTI at 24 cm in per-protocol analysis and fewer sore throat observed suggest this practice change warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/ 2019/09/021201.

A comparative study of pre-operative oral clonidine and pregabalin on post-operative analgesia after spinal anesthesia.

OBJECTIVES: Pregabalin and clonidine have anti-nociceptive properties. This study assesses their efficacy in prolonging the analgesic effect of spinal anesthesia and post-operative analgesic requirement in patients undergoing vaginal hysterectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 90 females in the age group of 30-60 years were randomly allocated in to three groups of 30 each, to receive either oral clonidine (150 µg) or oral pregabalin (150 mg) or oral multivitamin as placebo 1.5 h before spinal anesthesia with 3ml (15 mg) of 0.5% hyperbaric bupivacaine. Intensity of pain was measured on a visual analog scale (VAS) at the end of operation (0 h) then at 1,2,4,6,12 and 24 h thereafter. Diclofenac sodium intramuscularly 1 mg/kg was provided when the VASscore was >4 in the study period. Sedation was defined by Ramsay sedation scale at 0,6,12 and 24 h. Side-effects such as nausea and vomiting, respiratory depression and dryness of mouth were noted. RESULTS: The VAS scores were significantly less in the pregabalin group compared with the clonidine group at 6,12 and 24 h post-operatively with a P < 0.0001. More sedation was seen in the clonidine group than in the pregabalin group (P < 0.05). Analgesic consumption and VAS scores were lower in clonidine and pregabalin group compared with the placebo group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Oral pregabalin (150 mg) prolongs the post-operative pain relief after spinal anesthesia but produces less sedation compared with oral clonidine (150 µg).