We designed this randomized, double-blind clinical study to compare the safety and efficacy of 2% and 4% lidocaine during airway topical anesthesia with a spray-as-you-go technique via the fiberoptic bronchoscope. Fifty-two adult patients with a difficult airway were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 study groups to receive 2% (Group 1) or 4% lidocaine (Group 2) by a spray-as-you-go technique with the fiberoptic bronchoscope, in a double-blind manner. After airway topical anesthesia, awake fiberoptic orotracheal intubation (FOI) was performed. Level of sedation, time for each lidocaine spray in different targeted areas, total times for airway sprays, total dosages of lidocaine used for airway sprays, intubation times, and number of intubation attempts were noted. An independent investigator scored patients' comfort during airway topical anesthesia, patients' reaction, coughing severity, and intubating condition during awake FOI, and observed changes of arterial blood pressure and heart rate during each stage in the airway manipulation process. Serial blood samples were obtained for analysis of plasma lidocaine concentrations. Except for the total dosages and plasma concentrations of lidocaine, there were no significant differences in any of the observed variables between groups. All patients exhibited excellent or acceptable intubating conditions. The total dosages of lidocaine were significantly smaller in Group 1 (3.4 +/- 0.6 mg/kg) than in Group 2 (7.1 +/- 2.1 mg/kg). The plasma lidocaine concentrations in all observed points after the supraglottic sprays were larger in Group 2 than in Group 1. Both 2% and 4% lidocaine administered topically by a spray-as-you-go technique can provide clinically acceptable intubating conditions for awake FOI in sedated patients with a difficult airway. As compared with 4% lidocaine, however, 2% lidocaine requires a smaller dosage and results in lower plasma concentrations.

There is significant controversy regarding the influence of video laryngoscopy on the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscopy could improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from database inception until 15 February 2017. Only randomized controlled trials comparing video and direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in emergency department, intensive care unit, and prehospital settings were selected. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible study. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to assess the quality of evidence for all outcomes. Twelve studies (2583 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis did not show an improved first-attempt success rate using video laryngoscopy (relative risk [RR], 0.93; P = 0.28; low-quality evidence). There was significant heterogeneity among studies (I 2 = 91%). Subgroup analyses showed that, in the prehospital setting, video laryngoscopy decreased the first-attempt success rate (RR, 0.57; P < 0.01; high-quality evidence) and overall success rate (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48–0.69; moderate-quality evidence) by experienced operators, whereas in the in-hospital setting, no significant difference between two devices was identified for the first-attempt success rate (RR, 1.06; P = 0.14; moderate-quality evidence), regardless of the experience of the operators or the types of video laryngoscopes used (P > 0.05), although a slightly higher overall success rate was shown (RR, 1.11; P = 0.03; moderate-quality evidence). There were no differences between devices for other outcomes (P > 0.05), except for a lower rate of esophageal intubation (P = 0.01) and a higher rate of Cormack and Lehane grade 1 (P < 0.01) when using video laryngoscopy. On the basis of the results of this study, we conclude that, compared with direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy does not improve intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. Prehospital intubation is even worsened by use of video laryngoscopy when performed by experienced operators.

Background: Awake intubation with videolaryngoscopy (VL) is a novel method that is drawing more and more attention as an alternative to awake intubation with fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB). This meta-analysis is designed to determine the performance of VL compared to the FOB for awake intubation. Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Web of science were searched from database inception until October 30, 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing VL and FOB for awake intubation were selected. The primary outcome was the overall success rate. Rev-Man 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible study. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence for all outcomes. Results: Six studies (446 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis did not show any difference in the overall success rate by using VL and FOB (relative risk [RR], 1.00; P=0.99; high-quality evidence). There was no heterogeneity among studies (I2=0). Subgroup analyses showed no differences between two groups through nasal (RR, 1.00; P=1.00; high-quality evidence) and oral intubations (RR, 1.00; P=0.98; high-quality evidence). The intubation time was shorter by using VL than by using FOB (mean difference, -40.4 seconds; P0.05). Conclusion: For awake intubation, VL with a shorter intubation time is as effective and safe as FOB. VL may be a useful alternative to FOB.