Original Article

Videolaryngoscopy during Urgent Cesarean Delivery: Association with Neonatal Intensive Care Unit Admission

Authors: Andrew King, MD, Julie-Ann Thompson, MD, Stewart Hart, MD, Bobby Nossaman, MD

Abstract

Objectives: Parturients are at increased risk for difficult airway management with subsequent fetal complications. Videolaryngoscopy was opined to be the new standard of airway care to facilitate orotracheal intubation under urgent care conditions. We examined in parturients requiring general anesthesia for urgent cesarean delivery the association of the type of laryngoscopy technique and time required to facilitate orotracheal intubation with the incidence of subsequent neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission.

Methods: Following institutional review board approval, 431 parturients aged 18 years and older who underwent urgent cesarean section requiring general anesthesia were entered into this study. Patient characteristics, maternal comorbidities, and indications for urgent cesarean delivery were collected from the electronic medical records from January 2013 to November 2018. Orotracheal intubation times by type of laryngoscopy (video or direct) and NICU admission rates also were collected. A measure of effect size, risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were calculated for the likelihood of NICU admission by difficult orotracheal intubation and by type of laryngoscopy used to secure the airway.

Results: Videolaryngoscopy as the primary type of laryngoscopy was used in 24.1% (95% CI 20.3%–28.3%) of general anesthetics. The incidence of difficult orotracheal intubation was 4.4% (95% CI 2.8%-6.7%), with a higher incidence observed with videolaryngoscopy (8.7%) than with direct laryngoscopy (3.1%) and a risk difference of 5.6% (95% CI 0.001%–11.3%). The incidence of NICU admission was 38.4% (95% CI 34.0%–43.1%). Times for successful orotracheal intubation were longer with videolaryngoscopy. Videolaryngoscopy had a higher association for NICU admission (47%) than for direct laryngoscopy (36%), with a risk difference of 11.4% (95% CI 0.01%–22.3%).

Conclusions: Videolaryngoscopy did not decrease the incidence of difficult orotracheal intubation, and it did not decrease the time associated with orotracheal intubation. Videolaryngoscopy was associated with a higher association of NICU admission. These results suggest that videolaryngoscopy does not supplant direct laryngoscopy as the standard of care for orotracheal intubation under urgent care conditions of general anesthesia for cesarean section.
Posted in: Pregnancy32

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Kinsella SM, Winton AL, Mushambi MC, et al. Failed tracheal intubation during obstetric general anaesthesia: a literature review. Int J Obstet Anesth 2015;24:356–374.
 
2. Djabatey EA, Barclay PM. Difficult and failed intubation in 3430 obstetric general anaesthetics. Anaesthesia 2009;64:1168–1171.
 
3. Cormack RS. Failed intubation in obstetric anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2006; 61:505–506.
 
4. Alanoglu Z, Erkoc SK, Guclu CY, et al. Challenges of obstetric anesthesia: difficult laryngeal visualization. Acta Clin Croat 2016;55(Suppl 1):68–72.
 
5. Cortellazzi P, Minati L, Falcone C, et al. Predictive value of the El-Ganzouri multivariate risk index for difficult tracheal intubation: a comparison of Glidescope videolaryngoscopy and conventional Macintosh laryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth 2007;99:906–911.
 
6. Van Zundert A, Pieters B. Videolaryngoscopy: the new standard for intubation. Ten years' experience. Minerva Anestesiol 2015;81:1159–1162.
 
7. Rose DK, Cohen MM. The airway: problems and predictions in 18,500 patients. Can J Anaesth 1994;41(5 Part 1):372–383.
 
8. Rose DK, Cohen MM. The incidence of airway problems depends on the definition used. Can J Anaesth 1996;43:30–34.
 
9. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 2007;82:591–605.
 
10. Colquhoun D. An investigation of the false discovery rate and the misinterpretation of p-values. R Soc Open Sci 2014;1:140216.
 
11. Glickman ME, Rao SR, Schultz MR. False discovery rate control is a recommended alternative to Bonferroni-type adjustments in health studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2014;67:850–857.
 
12. Benjamin DJ, Berger JO, Johannesson M, et al. Redefine statistical significance. Nat Hum Behav 2018;2:6–10.
 
13. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al. Designing Clinical Research, 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007.
 
14. Katz MH. Multivariable Analysis: A Practical Guide for Clinicians and Public Health Researchers, 3rd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
 
15. Krom AJ, Cohen Y, Miller JP, et al. Choice of anaesthesia for category-1 caesarean section in women with anticipated difficult tracheal intubation: the use of decision analysis. Anaesthesia 2017;72:156–171.
 
16. Girard T, Palanisamy A. The obstetric difficult airway: if we can't predict it, can we prevent it? Anaesthesia 2017;72:143–147.
 
17. Teoh WH, Saxena S, Shah MK, et al. Comparison of three videolaryngoscopes: Pentax Airway Scope, C-MAC, Glidescope vs the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia 2010;65:1126–1132.
 
18. Chow S-C, Shao J, Wang H, et al. Sample Size Calculation in Clinical Research, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2007.
 
19. Forthofer RN, Lee ES, Hernandez M. Biostatistics: A Guide to Design, Analysis, and Discovery, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press; 2007.
 
20. Machin D, Campbell MJ, Walters SJ. Medical Statistics: A Textbook for the Health Sciences, 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2007:331.
 
21. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: effect size. Restor Dent Endod 2015;40:328–331.
 
22. Katz MH. Study Design and Statistical Analysis: A Practical Guide for Clinicians. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2006.
 
23. Rothwell PM. Factors that can affect the external validity of randomised controlled trials. PLoS Clin Trials 2006;1:e9.
 
24. Bothwell LE, Greene JA, Podolsky SH, et al. Assessing the gold standard— lessons from the history of RCTs. N Engl J Med 2016;374:2175–2181.
 
25. Chavez-MacGregor M, Giordano SH. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies: is there a battle? J Clin Oncol 2016;34:772–773.
 
26. Kim HY. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: risk difference, risk ratio, and odds ratio. Restor Dent Endod 2017;42:72–76.