ANAESTHESIOLOGY - GENERAL ANAESTHESIA / ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Effect of paratracheal pressure on the glottic view during direct laryngoscopy: a randomized, double blind, non-inferiority trial
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Anesthesiology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (IGIMS), Patna, India
Submission date: 2025-04-19
Final revision date: 2025-10-08
Acceptance date: 2025-10-19
Publication date: 2025-11-22
Corresponding author
Prakash K. Dubey
Department of Anesthesiology, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences (IGIMS), Patna, India
Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther 2025;57(1):356-364
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Cricoid pressure (CP) is commonly used during rapid sequence induction and intubation to prevent regurgitation and aspiration of gastric contents. However, its effectiveness and safety have been questioned. Paratracheal pressure (PP) has emerged as a potential alternative. This study aimed to compare the adverse effects of PP versus CP on the glottic view during direct laryngoscopy.
Material and methods:
This randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial included 200 adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia. Participants were randomly assigned to receive either PP or CP during anaesthesia induction. The primary endpoint was the incidence of deteriorated laryngoscopic view, assessed by a blinded observer using the modified Cormack-Lehane grade with a non-inferiority margin of –10%. Secondary endpoints included the percentage of the glottic opening score, ease of mask ventilation, changes in ventilation volume and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) during mechanical mask ventilation, ease of tracheal intubation, and resistance during tube advancement.
Results:
PP was found to be non-inferior to CP regarding the incidence of deteriorated laryngoscopic view (0% vs. 20%; absolute risk difference, −20%; 2-sided 95% CI, −26.68 to –13.32; P < 0.001). Mask ventilation was easier with PP (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.15–2.17; P = 0.284). The increase in PIP was significantly smaller in the paratracheal group (0.47 (0.31–0.63) vs. 1.46 (1.22–1.69); P = 0.002).
Conclusions:
PP is non-inferior to CP concerning its effect on the glottic view during direct laryngoscopy. Additionally, PP may facilitate easier mask ventilation and reduce PIP during mechanical ventilation, making it a viable alternative to cricoid pressure.
REFERENCES (36)
1.
Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C; Fourth National Audit Project. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: Anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2011; 106: 617-631. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aer058.
2.
Fawcett WJ, Thomas M. Pre-operative fasting in adults and children: clinical practice and guidelines. Anaesthesia 2019; 74: 83-88. DOI: 10.1111/anae.14500.
3.
Beck-Schimmer B, Bonvini JM. Bronchoaspiration: incidence, consequences, and management. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011; 28: 78-84. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32834205a8.
4.
Olsson GL, Hallen B, Hambraeus-Jonzon K. Aspiration during anesthesia: a computer-aided study of 185,358 anesthetics. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1986; 30: 84-92. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1986.tb02373.x.
5.
Stept WJ, Safar P. Rapid induction-intubation for prevention of gastric-content aspiration. Anesth Analg 1970; 49: 633-636.
6.
Brimacombe JR, Berry AM. Cricoid pressure. Can J Anaesth 1997; 44: 414-425. DOI: 10.1007/BF03014464.
7.
Sellick B. Cricoid pressure to control regurgitation of stomach contents during induction of anesthesia. Lancet 1961; 2: 404-406. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(61)92485-0.
8.
Schwartz D, Matthay M, Cohen N. Death and other complications of emergency airway management in critically ill adults. A prospective investigation of 297 tracheal intubations. Anesthesiology 1995; 82: 367-376. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199502000-00007.
9.
Smith KJ, Ladak S, Choi PTL, Dobranowski J. The cricoid cartilage and the esophagus are not aligned in close to half of adult patients. Can J Anesth 2002; 49: 503-507. DOI: 10.1007/BF03017931.
10.
Smith KJ, Dobranowski J, Yip G. Cricoid pressure displaces the esophagus: an observational study using magnetic resonance imaging. Anesthesiology 2003; 99: 60-64. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200307000-00013.
11.
Boet S, Duttchen K, Chan J, Chan AW, Morrish W, Ferland A, et al. Cricoid pressure provides incomplete esophageal occlusion associated with lateral deviation: a magnetic resonance imaging study. J Emerg Med 2012; 42: 606-611. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.05.014.
12.
Kei J, Utschig EE, van Tonder RJ. Using ultrasonography to assess the effectiveness of cricoid pressure on esophageal compression. J Emerg Med 2017; 53: 236-240. DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2017.04.025.
13.
Salem MR, Bruninga KW, Dodlapatii J, Joseph NJ. Metoclopramide does not attenuate cricoid pressure-induced relaxation of the lower esophageal sphincter in awake volunteers. Anesthesiology 2008; 109: 806-810. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31818a37dc.
14.
Tournadre JP, Chassard D, Berrada KR, Bouletreau P. Cricoid cartilage pressure decreases lower esophageal sphincter tone. Anesthesiology 1997; 86: 7-9. DOI: 10.1097/00000542-199701000-00003.
15.
Gómez-Ríos MÁ, Sastre JA, Onrubia-Fuertes X, López T, Abad- Gurumeta A, Casans-Francés R, et al. Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management. Part I. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim (Engl Ed) 2024; 71: 171-206. DOI: 10.1016/j.redare.2024.02.001.
17.
Ho AM, Wong W, Ling E, Chung DC, Tay BA. Airway difficulties caused by improperly applied cricoid pressure. J Emerg Med 2001; 20: 29-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0736-4679(00)00285-7.
18.
Birenbaum A, Hajage D, Roche S, Ntouba A, Eurin M, Cuvillon P, et al.; IRIS Investigators Group. Effect of cricoid pressure compared with a sham procedure in the rapid sequence induction of anesthesia: the IRIS randomized clinical trial. JAMA Surg 2019; 154: 9-17. DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2018.3577.
19.
Vasudevan A, Srinivasan S, Vinayagam S, Ramkumar G, Senthilnathan M. Assessment of the effectiveness of cricoid pressure in preventing gastric insufflation during bag and mask ventilation: a randomized controlled trial. Saudi J Anaesth 2018; 12: 606-611. DOI: 10.4103/sja.SJA_240_18.
20.
Howells TH, Chamney AR, Wraight WJ, Simons RS. The application of cricoid pressure. An assessment and a survey of its practice. Anaesthesia 1983; 38: 457-460. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.1983.tb14030.x.
21.
Fenton PM, Reynolds F. Life-saving or ineffective? An observational study of the use of cricoid pressure and maternal outcome in an African setting. Int J Obstet Anesth 2009; 18: 106-110. DOI: 10.1016/ j.ijoa.2008.07.006.
22.
Andruszkiewicz P, Wojtczak J, Wroblewski L, Kaczor M, Sobczyk D, Kowalik I. Ultrasound evaluation of the impact of cricoid pressure versus novel ‘paralaryngeal pressure’ on anteroposterior oesophageal diameter. Anaesthesia 2016; 7: 1024-1029. DOI: 10.1111/anae.13518.
23.
Gautier N, Danklou J, Brichant JF, Lopez AM, Vandepitte C, Kuro- da MM, et al. The effect of a force applied to the left paratracheal oesophagus on-air entry into the gastric antrum during positive-pressure ventilation using a facemask. Anaesthesia 2019; 74: 22-28. DOI: 10.1111/anae.14442.
24.
Haslam N, Parker L, Duggan JE. Effect of cricoid pressure on the view at laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 2005; 60: 41-47. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2004.04010.x.
25.
Snider DD, Clarke D, Finucane BT. The “BURP” maneuver worsens the glottic view when applied in combination with cricoid pressure. Can J Anaesth 2005; 52: 100-104. DOI: 10.1007/BF03018589.
26.
Kristensen MS, Teoh WH, Rudolph SS. Ultrasonographic identification of the cricothyroid membrane: best evidence, techniques, and clinical impact. Br J Anaesth 2016; 117 (Suppl 1): i39-i48. DOI: 10.1093/bja/aew176.
27.
Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia 1984; 39: 1105-1111.
28.
Yentis SM, Lee DJ. Evaluation of an improved scoring system for the grading of direct laryngoscopy. Anaesthesia 1998; 53: 1041-1044. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1998.00605.x.
29.
Won D, Kim H, Chang JE, Lee JM, Min SW, Ma S, et al. Effect of paratracheal pressure on the glottic view during direct laryngoscopy: a randomized double-blind, noninferiority trial. Anesth Analg 2021; 133: 491-499. DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005620.
30.
Dhand NK, Khatkar MS. Statulator: an online statistical calculator. Sample Size Calculator for Comparing Two Independent Proportions. 2014. Available at:
http://statulator.com/SampleSi... (Accessed: 09.06.2022).
31.
Hur M, Lee K, Min SK, Kim JY. Left paratracheal pressure versus cricoid pressure for successful laryngeal mask airway insertion in adult patients: a randomized, non-inferiority trial. Minerva Anestesiol 2021; 87: 1183-1190. DOI: 10.23736/S0375-9393.21.15779-7.
32.
Kim HY, Moon JH, Park HY, Min SK, Kim JY. A noninferiority trial comparing left paratracheal pressure versus cricoid pressure on tracheal intubation conditions using the Pentax Airway Scope. Sci Rep 2022; 12: 16263. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-20681-y.
33.
Won D, Kim H, Chang JE, Lee JM, Kim TK, Kim H, et al. Comparison of the effects of paratracheal pressure and cricoid pressure on placement of the i-gel® supraglottic airway: a randomized clinical trial. Can J Anaesth 2024; 7: 996-1003. DOI: 10.1007/s12630-024-02741-1.
34.
Gupta M, Jain D, Jain K, Gandhi K, Arora A. Non-inferiority randomized controlled trial comparing CricOid pressure and para- laryngeal pressure in parturients undergoing cesarean delivery: NiCOP trial. Int J Obstet Anesth 2024; 59: 103997. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2024. 103997.
35.
Javillier B, Grandjean F, Ounas K, Gautier N, Meunier P, Bonhomme V, et al. Effect of left paratracheal pressure on left carotid blood flow. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2024; 68: 51‐55. DOI: 10.1111/aas.14328.
36.
Javillier B, Gillain N, Bonhomme V, Deflandre E. Assessment of the paratracheal force required to occlude the oesophagus: is there a sex difference? Eur J Anaesthesiol 2025; 42: 747-766.