Trial reportBMC anesthesiology2025
A randomised controlled trial comparing of the efficacy and safety of left lung isolation for minimally invasive direct coronary artery surgery using video-imaging double-lumen endobronchial tube with a bronchial blocker paced through a video-imaging single-lumen tracheal tube.
Trial report in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMinimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MIDCAB) requires effective left lung isolation, yet evidence comparing video-imaging single-lumen tracheal tubes with bronchial blockers (VSLT + BB) and video-imaging double-lumen endotracheal tubes (VDLT) remains limited. This randomized controlled trial aimed to: (1) quantitatively compare time efficiency for device placement and lung isolation between VSLT + BB and VDLT; (2) evaluate perioperative airway complications; and (3) assess differential impacts on postoperative recovery, including postoperative sore throat, hoarseness, and Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scores.
methodsIn this single-blind randomized controlled trial, 97 MIDCAB patients were allocated to VSLT + BB or VDLT groups. Primary outcomes were tube positioning time; secondary outcomes included total intubation time, oxygenation parameters, hemodynamic variables, and postoperative complications.
resultsVDLT exhibited shorter tube positioning time (128 ± 37 vs. 159 ± 58 s; p < 0.001) but longer total intubation time (192 ± 40 vs. 159 ± 58 s; p < 0.001). VSLT + BB demonstrated higher PaO₂ at 10-min post-OLV (226.0 vs. 168.0 mmHg; p = 0.035) with lower airway pressures (p < 0.05). Postoperative sore throat (33% vs. 13%; OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.04, 7.71; p = 0.018) and hoarseness at 48 h (55% vs. 31%; OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.08, 5.59; p = 0.018) were higher with VDLT. Lung collapse quality, hypoxemia rates, pulmonary complications, and QoR-15 scores showed no significant differences (all p > 0.05).
conclusionsIn MIDCAB surgery, VDLT demonstrated significantly shorter tube positioning time compared with VSLT + BB. However, VSLT + BB exhibited shorter total intubation time than VDLT by avoiding postoperative tube exchange. Both techniques provided clinically acceptable lung isolation with comparable lung collapse quality and hypoxemia incidence. VSLT + BB exhibited lower airway pressures and higher oxygenation indices during early OLV, whereas VDLT was associated with higher rates of minor airway complications (sore throat, hoarseness). No significant differences were observed in pulmonary complications, hemodynamic stability, or recovery quality.
trial registrationChiCTR2300072124, 3/6/2023.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.