Comparison of left double lumen tube and y-shaped and double-ended bronchial blocker for one lung ventilation in thoracic surgery—a randomised controlled clinical trial

Abstract

Background

Double lumen tube (DLT) intubation is the most commonly used technique for one lung ventilation. Bronchial blockers (BB) are an alternative, especially for difficult airways. The EZ-bronchial blocker (EZB) is an innovative y-shaped and double-ended device of the BB family.

Methods

A randomised, controlled trial was conducted in 80 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery using DLT or EZB for one lung ventilation (German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00014816). The objective of the study was to compare the clinical performance of EZB with DLT. Primary endpoint was total time to obtain successful one lung ventilation. Secondary endpoints were time subsections, quality of lung collapse, difficulty of intubation, any complications during the procedure, incidence of objective trauma of the oropharynx and supraglottic space and intubation-related subjective symptoms.

Results

74 patients were included, DLT group ( n = 38), EZB group ( n = 36). Median total time to obtain one lung ventilation [IQR] in the DLT group was 234 s [207 to 294] versus 298 s [243 to 369] in the EZB group ( P = 0.007). Median total time was relevantly influenced by different preparation times. Quality of lung collapse was equal in both groups, DLT group 89.5% were excellent vs. 83.3% in the EZB group ( P = 0.444). Inadequate lung collapse in five patients of the EZB group resulted in unsuccessful repositioning attempts and secondary DLT placement. Endoscopic examinations revealed significantly more carina trauma ( P = 0.047) and subglottic haemorrhage ( P = 0.047) in the DLT group. Postoperative subjective symptoms (sore throat, hoarseness) were more common in the DLT group, as were speech problems.

Conclusions

Using EZB prima facie results in prolonged time to obtain one lung ventilation with equal quality of lung collapse for the thoracic surgeon. If preparation times are omitted in the analysis, the time difference is statistically and clinically not relevant. Our data showed only little evidence for reducing objective airway trauma as well as subjective complaints. In summary both procedures were comparable in terms of times and clinical applicability. Therefore decisions for DLT or EZB should depend more on individual experience, in-house equipment and the individual patient, than on any times that are neither clinically significant nor relevant.

Trial registration

German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00014816, prospectively registered on 07.06.2018