Impact of Macintosh blade size on endotracheal intubation success in intensive care units: a retrospective multicenter observational MacSize-ICU study

International audiencePurpose: To investigate the impact of Macintosh blade size used during direct laryngoscopy (DL) on first-attempt intubation success of orotracheal intubation in French intensive care units (ICUs). We hypothesized that success rate would be higher with Macintosh blade size No3 than with No4.Methods: Multicenter retrospective observational study based on data from prospective trials conducted in 48 French ICUs of university, and general and private hospitals. After each intubation using Macintosh DL, patients’ and operators’ characteristics, Macintosh blade size, results of first DL and alternative techniques used, as well as the need of a second operator were collected. Complications rates associated with intubation were investigated. Primary outcome was success rate of first DL using Macintosh blade.Results: A total of 2139 intubations were collected, 629 with a Macintosh blade No3 and 1510 with a No4. Incidence of first-pass intubation after first DL was significantly higher with Macintosh blade No3 (79.5 vs 73.3%, p = 0.0025), despite equivalent Cormack–Lehane scores (p = 0.48). Complications rates were equivalent between groups. Multivariate analysis concluded to a significant impact of Macintosh blade size on first DL success in favor of blade No3 (OR 1.44 [95% CI 1.14–1.84]; p = 0.0025) without any significant center effect on the primary outcome (p = 0.18). Propensity scores and adjustment analyses concluded to equivalent results.Conclusion: In the present study, Macintosh blade No3 was associated with improved first-passed DL in French ICUs. However, study design requires the conduct of a nationwide prospective multicenter randomized trial in different settings to confirm these results

Design and Rationale of the Sevoflurane for Sedation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (SESAR) Randomized Controlled Trial

Preclinical studies have shown that volatile anesthetics may have beneficial effects on injured lungs, and pilot clinical data support improved arterial oxygenation, attenuated inflammation, and decreased lung epithelial injury in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving inhaled sevoflurane compared to intravenous midazolam. Whether sevoflurane is effective in improving clinical outcomes among patients with ARDS is unknown, and the benefits and risks of inhaled sedation in ARDS require further evaluation. Here, we describe the SESAR (Sevoflurane for Sedation in ARDS) trial designed to address this question. SESAR is a two-arm, investigator-initiated, multicenter, prospective, randomized, stratified, parallel-group clinical trial with blinded outcome assessment designed to test the efficacy of sedation with sevoflurane compared to intravenous propofol in patients with moderate to severe ARDS. The primary outcome is the number of days alive and off the ventilator at 28 days, considering death as a competing event, and the key secondary outcome is 90 day survival. The planned enrollment is 700 adult participants at 37 French academic and non-academic centers. Safety and long-term outcomes will be evaluated, and biomarker measurements will help better understand mechanisms of action. The trial is funded by the French Ministry of Health, the European Society of Anaesthesiology, and Sedana Medical

Personalised mechanical ventilation tailored to lung morphology versus low positive end-expiratory pressure for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in France (the LIVE study): a multicentre, single-blind, randomised controlled trial

International audienc