Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2022
Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy with single use bronchoscopes versus reusable bronchoscopes - a prospective randomized trial (TraSUB).
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03952247 (Prospective, Randomized Study in Ventilated Critically Ill Patients Receiving Percutaneous Tracheotomy. A Comparison of Periinterventional Visualization of Conventional Bronchoscopy and Single Use Bronchoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Prospective, Randomized Study in Ventilated Critically Ill Patients Receiving Percutaneous Tracheotomy. A Comparison of Periinterventional Visualization of Conventional Bronchoscopy and Single Use Bronchoscopy (TraSUB™)
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Single-use vs. reusable flexible bronchoscopes for airway management and in critical care: a narrative review.Anaesthesia · 2025Review
- Evaluation of the Effect of Morphological Structure on Dilatational Tracheostomy Interference Location and Complications with Ultrasonography and Fiberoptic Bronchoscopy.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Single Use or Disposable Flexible Bronchoscopes: Bench Top and Preclinical Comparison of Currently Available Devices.Journal of intensive care medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApart from conventional reusable bronchoscopes, single-use bronchoscopes (SUB) were recently introduced. Data suggest that SUB might prevent from the risk of cross contamination (i.e. multiresistant pathogens, SARS CoV-2) and save costs. We aimed to investigate visualization, ventilation, handling characteristics, changes in patients' gas exchange, and costs associated with both types of bronchoscopes during percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT).
methodsIn this prospective, randomized, noninferiority study, 46 patients undergoing PDT were randomized 1:1 to PDT with SUB (Ambu aScope) or reusable bronchoscopes (CONV, Olympus BF-P60). Visualization of tracheal structures rated on 4-point Likert scales was the primary end-point. Furthermore, quality of ventilation, device handling characteristics, changes in the patients' gas exchange, pH values, and costs were assessed.
resultsNoninferiority for visualization (the primary endpoint) was demonstrated for the SUB group. Mean visualization scores (lower values better) were 4.1 (95% confidence intervals: 3.9;4.3) for SUB vs. 4.1 (4.0;4.2) for CONV. Noninferiority of ventilation (estimated by minute volume and SpO
conclusionIn our study, visualization and overall performance of the SUB during PDT were noninferior to reusable bronchoscopes. Therefore, PDT with SUB is feasible and should be considered if favored by individual institution's cost analysis.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03952247 . Submitted for registration on 28/04/2019 and first posted on 16/05/2019.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.