Awake Tracheal Intubation Is Associated with Fewer Adverse Events in Critical Care Patients than Anaesthetised Tracheal Intubation

7Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Tracheal intubation in critical care is a high-risk procedure requiring significant expertise and airway strategy modification. We hypothesise that awake tracheal intubation is associated with a lower incidence of severe adverse events compared to standard tracheal intubation in critical care patients. Methods: Records were acquired for all tracheal intubations performed from 2020 to 2022 for critical care patients at a tertiary hospital. Each awake tracheal intubation case, using a videolaryngoscope with a hyperangulated blade (McGrath® MAC X-Blade), was propensity matched with two controls (1:2 ratio; standard intubation videolaryngoscopy (VL) and direct laryngoscopy (DL) undergoing general anaesthesia). The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events, defined as a mean arterial pressure of <55 mmHg (hypotension), SpO2 < 80% (desaturation) after sufficient preoxygenation, or peri-interventional cardiac arrest. Results: Of the 135 tracheal intubations included for analysis, 45 involved the use of an awake tracheal intubation. At least one adverse event occurred after tracheal intubation in 36/135 (27%) of patients, including awake 1/45 (2.2%; 1/1 hypotension), VL 10/45 (22%; 6/10 hypotension and 4/10 desaturation), and DL 25/45 (47%; 10/25 hypotension, 12/25 desaturation, and 3/25 cardiac arrest; p < 0.0001). Conclusions: In this retrospective observational study of intubation practices in critical care patients, awake tracheal intubation was associated with a lower incidence of severe adverse events than anaesthetised tracheal intubation.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kriege, M., Rissel, R., El Beyrouti, H., & Hotz, E. (2023). Awake Tracheal Intubation Is Associated with Fewer Adverse Events in Critical Care Patients than Anaesthetised Tracheal Intubation. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(18). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12186060

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free