Anaesthesia
-
The availability of sugammadex as a selective encapsulating agent for rocuronium has led to speculation that it may be useful in mitigating rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis. Off-label use of sugammadex for this indication has already been documented in case reports although there are theoretical objections to the likelihood of an allergen-binding agent's being able to attenuate the immunological cascade of anaphylaxis. ⋯ These findings demonstrate that a cyclodextrin can bind an allergen and exclude it from interacting with the immune system, and may potentially lead to novel applications in other allergic diseases. However, there is no evidence that sugammadex should be used for the treatment of rocuronium-induced anaphylaxis, and clinical management should follow established protocols.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
A randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq™ optical laryngoscope with conventional laryngoscopy in infants and children.
The Airtraq(™) optical laryngoscope became available in paediatric sizes in the UK in May 2008. We conducted a randomised, controlled trial comparing the Airtraq with conventional laryngoscopy during routine anaesthesia in children. We hypothesised that the Airtraq laryngoscope would perform as well as conventional laryngoscopy. ⋯ The mean (SD) intubation time using the Airtraq was longer than conventional laryngoscopy overall (47.3 (32.6) vs 26.3 (11.5) s; p=0.002), though the difference was only significant for children (p=0.003) and not for infants (p=0.29). The Airtraq provided a better view of the larynx compared with conventional laryngoscopy (in infants (percentage of glottic opening scores 100 (95-100 [90-100]) vs 77 (50-90 [40-100]), respectively; p=0.001; visual analogue scores for field of view 9.2 (9.2-9.5 [8.2-10.0]) vs 6.8 (5.1-8.0 [4.7-10.0]), respectively; p=0.001). In children, the Airtraq provided a similar view of the larynx (percentage of glottic opening scores 100 (100-100 [40-100]) vs 100 (90-100 [50-100]), respectively; visual analogue scores for field of view 9.2 (8.6-10.0 [7.0-10.0]) vs 9.2 (8.6-10.0 [5.6-10.0]), respectively; both p>0.05), compared with conventional laryngoscopy.