Heart rate/blood pressure response and airway morbidity following tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy, GlideScope and Trachlight: a randomized control trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Haemodynamic response to tracheal intubation might be detrimental in high-risk patients. Minimizing oropharyngo-laryngeal stimulation or avoiding laryngoscopy may attenuate this response. We hypothesized that intubations performed with GlideScope or Trachlight would generate a lesser haemodynamic response than the conventional method of direct laryngoscopy. The objective of this study was to compare the haemodynamic response following tracheal intubation, using three different techniques of intubation. We also examined postoperative airway morbidities as our secondary outcome. METHODS: This was a prospective randomized control trial, conducted at Mount Sinai Hospital of Toronto. After Ethics Board approval, 60 adult ASA status I and II patients, scheduled for elective surgery requiring general anaesthesia with orotracheal intubation, were randomly allocated into three groups. Intubation was performed by a single experienced anaesthesiologist, using direct laryngoscopy, GlideScope or Trachlight. The haemodynamic variables were measured noninvasively at specific time intervals. We also recorded the number of attempts and total time for intubation. Postoperative airway symptoms following surgery were assessed using a questionnaire. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in blood pressure and heart rate between the groups. Direct laryngoscopy intubation times were significantly lower than those of the other techniques (both P<0.0001). The occurrence of sore-throat symptoms in recovery was significantly higher in the Trachlight group (P=0.0033). CONCLUSION: There was no benefit of using any of the three intubation techniques for attenuation of haemodynamic changes. There was a higher incidence of airway symptoms associated with Trachlight intubation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".