Flexible nasal bronchoscopy vs. Airtraq® videolaryngoscopy for awake tracheal intubation: a randomised controlled non‐inferiority study

Abstract

SummaryVideolaryngoscopy is a suitable alternative to flexible bronchoscopy to facilitate awake tracheal intubation. The relative effectiveness of these techniques in clinical practice is unknown. We compared flexible nasal bronchoscopy with Airtraq® videolaryngoscopy in patients with an anticipated difficult airway scheduled for awake tracheal intubation. Patients were allocated randomly to flexible nasal bronchoscopy or videolaryngoscopy. All procedures were performed with upper airway regional anaesthesia blockade and a target‐controlled intravenous infusion of remifentanil. The success rate with the allocated technique was the primary outcome. A non‐inferiority analysis with a predefined limit of 8% was planned. Seventy‐eight patients were recruited, allocated randomly and analysed. The rate of successful intubation was 97% and 82% in the flexible bronchoscopy and videolaryngoscopy groups, respectively, p = 0.032. The median (IQR [range]) time to tracheal intubation was shorter with the Airtraq, 163 (105–332 [40–1004]) vs. 217 (180–364 [120–780]) s, p = 0.030. There were no significant differences for complications found between the groups. The median visual analogue scale for ease of intubation was 8 (7–9 [0–10]) for Airtraq vs. 8 (7–9 [0–10]) for flexible bronchoscopy, p = 0.710. The median visual analogue scale for patient comfort for Airtraq was 8 (6–9 [2–10]) vs. 8 (7–9 [3–10]) for flexible bronchoscopy, p = 0.370. The Airtraq videolaryngoscope is not non‐inferior to flexible bronchoscopy for awake tracheal intubation in a clinical setting when awake tracheal intubation is indicted. It may be a suitable alternative when judged on a case‐by‐case basis.