Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30505605›Full record

ArticleTurkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation2018

Haemodynamic Response to Four Different Laryngoscopes.

Demet Altun, Achmet Ali, Emre Çamcı, Anıl Özonur, Tülay Özkan Seyhan

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Turkish journal of anaesthesiology and reanimation, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04424953 (A Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare McGrath Videolaryngoscope Against Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation When Powered Air Purifying Respirator is Worn During the Current Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04424953 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

A Randomised Controlled Trial to Compare McGrath Videolaryngoscope Against Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation When Powered Air Purifying Respirator is Worn During the Current Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic

TypeinterventionalSponsorSingapore General HospitalRan2020 to 2020Enrolled28ConditionsCoronavirus Infection, Ventilatory Failure, Anesthesia Intubation ComplicationArmsMcGrath videolaryngoscope, Direct laryngoscope
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Demet AltunDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, İstanbul University İstanbul School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9628-0865
Achmet AliDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, İstanbul University İstanbul School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7224-6654
Emre ÇamcıDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, İstanbul University İstanbul School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1618-4890
Anıl ÖzonurDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, İstanbul University İstanbul School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5050-6729
Tülay Özkan SeyhanDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation, İstanbul University İstanbul School of Medicine, İstanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7070-8827

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveIn this prospective randomized study, we aimed to evaluate the effect of tracheal intubation with four different laryngoscopes [Macintosh direct laryngoscope-classic laryngoscope (CL), McCoy (MC), C-Mac video-laryngoscope (CM) and McGrath video-laryngoscope (MG)] on haemodynamic responses in patients with a normal airway.

methodsOne hundred and sixty patients were included. Succeeding haemodynamic measurements were performed immediately after intubation (T2) and for 5 min with 1-min intervals (T3-T4-T5-T6-T7). The primary outcome was the heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) change triggered by the four different laryngoscopes. The intubation time, the number of intubation attempts, need for stylet or additional manipulation, glottic view and traumatic complications caused by intubation procedure were recorded as secondary outcomes.

resultsHR values significantly increased with the completion of laryngoscopy and intubation at T2 for the CL, MC and CM groups. Lesser fluctuation in HR and SBP was observed in the MG group. Intubation time was significantly shorter in the MG group (p<0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding the number of intubation attempts, need for stylette and glottic view. Fewer patients in the MG and CM groups experienced a moderate and severe sore throat than in the other two groups. Shorter intubation time and lesser sore throat incidence were observed in the MG group.

conclusionMG offers less haemodynamic stimulation than CL, MC, and CM. Our findings showed that tracheal intubation with MG is advantageous in preventing cardiovascular stress responses with short intubation time and less sore throat incidence.

Indexed as

Haemodynamic responselaryngoscopetracheal intubation

Identifiers

PMID30505605
PMCPMC6223868

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.