A Comparison of the EZ-Blocker With a Cohen Flex-Tip Blocker for One-Lung Ventilation

• Published in: Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia Vol. 28; no. 4; pp. 896 - 899
• Main Authors: Kus, Alparslan, MD, Hosten, Tulay, MD, Gurkan, Yavuz, MD, Gul Akgul, Aslı, MD, Solak, Mine, MD, Toker, Kamil, MD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.08.2014
• Subjects: Anesthesia & Perioperative Care; bronchial blocker; Bronchoscopy; Cohen Flex-Tip bronchial blocker; Critical Care; Equipment Design; EZ-Blocker; Female; Fiber Optic Technology; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Intubation, Intratracheal - instrumentation; Male; Middle Aged; one-lung ventilation; One-Lung Ventilation - instrumentation; Prospective Studies; Respiration, Artificial - methods; Thoracic Surgical Procedures; EZ-Blocker; bronchial blocker; one-lung ventilation; Cohen Flex-Tip bronchial blocker
• ISSN: 1053-0770; 1532-8422
• DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2013.02.006

Objectives The EZ-Blocker (IQ Medical Ventures BV, Rotterdam, Netherlands) is a newly designed device for one-lung ventilation. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the Cohen Flex-Tip bronchial blocker (Cook, Bloomington, IN) and the EZ-Blocker for one-lung ventilation during thoracic surgery. Design Randomized and prospective. Setting A university hospital. Participants This study included 40 patients undergoing thoracic surgical procedures. Interventions Patients were assigned to 2 study groups: Patients who received the Cohen Flex-Tip blocker were assigned to the Cohen group, and patients who received the EZ-Blocker were assigned to the EZ group. In both groups, fiberoptic guidance was used during placement of the bronchial blockers. Comparisons between the groups included the time to correct placement, the incidence of malpositioning, and the satisfaction level of the surgeon (good, fair, poor). Measurements and Main Results One-lung ventilation was achieved successfully for all patients. The time to correct placement (mean±SD) was significantly shorter in the EZ group (146±56 seconds) compared with the Cohen group (241±51 seconds; p = 0.01). The incidence of malpositioning was significantly lower in the EZ group compared with the Cohen group (p = 0.018). Surgeon satisfaction was similar in both groups. Conclusions In this study, both bronchial blockers provided similar surgical exposure during thoracic procedures. The EZ-Blocker had a shorter time to correct positioning and less frequent intraoperative malpositioning.