BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Postextubation problems such as laryngeal edema and reintubation are common complications after tracheal intubation. The cuff-leak test has been proposed as a method of identifying those patients at high risk in clinical practice, but its efficacy remains controversial. METHODS: We searched electronic databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, Ovid, and Embase. Studies were included if they were concerned with accuracy of the cuff-leak test and the effect of cuff-leak test screening on patient-important outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality with the QUADAS tool and extracted data. We compiled diagnostic two by two tables and pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity, but refrained from pooling when there was considerable clinical or statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Sixteen diagnostic tests with 3172 participants and six clinical trials with 2500 patients were identified. The median diagnostic odds ratios for predicting postextubation laryngeal edema and reintubation were 18.16 (range, 3.54 to 356.00) and 10.80 (2.74 to 1665.00), respectively. The accuracy of the cuff-leak test varied with different methods, duration of intubation, and study population. An indirect comparison found significant differences in post-extubation incidence of laryngeal edema (OR = 2.09, 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.89) but not reintubation (OR = 0.94, 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.57) if using cuff-leak test screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the cuff-leak test accurately predicts which adult patients are at high risk of postextubation airway complications, but randomized controlled trials are needed to further assess this diagnostic strategy.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Postextubation problems such as laryngeal edema and reintubation are common complications after tracheal intubation. The cuff-leak test has been proposed as a method of identifying those patients at high risk in clinical practice, but its efficacy remains controversial. METHODS: We searched electronic databases including PubMed, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Web of Science, Ovid, and Embase. Studies were included if they were concerned with accuracy of the cuff-leak test and the effect of cuff-leak test screening on patient-important outcomes. Two reviewers independently assessed study quality with the QUADAS tool and extracted data. We compiled diagnostic two by two tables and pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity, but refrained from pooling when there was considerable clinical or statistical heterogeneity. RESULTS: Sixteen diagnostic tests with 3172 participants and six clinical trials with 2500 patients were identified. The median diagnostic odds ratios for predicting postextubation laryngeal edema and reintubation were 18.16 (range, 3.54 to 356.00) and 10.80 (2.74 to 1665.00), respectively. The accuracy of the cuff-leak test varied with different methods, duration of intubation, and study population. An indirect comparison found significant differences in post-extubation incidence of laryngeal edema (OR = 2.09, 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.89) but not reintubation (OR = 0.94, 95% CI, 0.32 to 1.57) if using cuff-leak test screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest the cuff-leak test accurately predicts which adult patients are at high risk of postextubation airway complications, but randomized controlled trials are needed to further assess this diagnostic strategy.
Authors: Carmen Sílvia Valente Barbas; Alexandre Marini Ísola; Augusto Manoel de Carvalho Farias; Alexandre Biasi Cavalcanti; Ana Maria Casati Gama; Antonio Carlos Magalhães Duarte; Arthur Vianna; Ary Serpa Neto; Bruno de Arruda Bravim; Bruno do Valle Pinheiro; Bruno Franco Mazza; Carlos Roberto Ribeiro de Carvalho; Carlos Toufen Júnior; Cid Marcos Nascimento David; Corine Taniguchi; Débora Dutra da Silveira Mazza; Desanka Dragosavac; Diogo Oliveira Toledo; Eduardo Leite Costa; Eliana Bernadete Caser; Eliezer Silva; Fabio Ferreira Amorim; Felipe Saddy; Filomena Regina Barbosa Gomes Galas; Gisele Sampaio Silva; Gustavo Faissol Janot de Matos; João Claudio Emmerich; Jorge Luis dos Santos Valiatti; José Mario Meira Teles; Josué Almeida Victorino; Juliana Carvalho Ferreira; Luciana Passuello do Vale Prodomo; Ludhmila Abrahão Hajjar; Luiz Claudio Martins; Luis Marcelo Sá Malbouisson; Mara Ambrosina de Oliveira Vargas; Marco Antonio Soares Reis; Marcelo Brito Passos Amato; Marcelo Alcântara Holanda; Marcelo Park; Marcia Jacomelli; Marcos Tavares; Marta Cristina Paulette Damasceno; Murillo Santucci César Assunção; Moyzes Pinto Coelho Duarte Damasceno; Nazah Cherif Mohamed Youssef; Paulo José Zimmermann Teixeira; Pedro Caruso; Péricles Almeida Delfino Duarte; Octavio Messeder; Raquel Caserta Eid; Ricardo Goulart Rodrigues; Rodrigo Francisco de Jesus; Ronaldo Adib Kairalla; Sandra Justino; Sergio Nogueira Nemer; Simone Barbosa Romero; Verônica Moreira Amado Journal: Rev Bras Ter Intensiva Date: 2014 Jul-Sep
Authors: Kimberley Lewis; Sarah Culgin; Roman Jaeschke; Dan Perri; Corry Marchildon; Kelly Hassall; Thomas Piraino; Lehana Thabane; Yousef Almubarak; Mohammed S Alshahrani; Bram Rochwerg; Bandar Baw; Wojciech Szczeklik; Tim Karachi; Waleed Alhazzani Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-07-19 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jingyi Wang; Joseph Harold Walline; Lu Yin; Yili Dai; Jiayuan Dai; Huadong Zhu; Xuezhong Yu; Jun Xu Journal: Trials Date: 2021-01-06 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: J Adam Law; Laura V Duggan; Mathieu Asselin; Paul Baker; Edward Crosby; Andrew Downey; Orlando R Hung; George Kovacs; François Lemay; Rudiger Noppens; Matteo Parotto; Roanne Preston; Nick Sowers; Kathryn Sparrow; Timothy P Turkstra; David T Wong; Philip M Jones Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: B A McGrath; N Ashby; M Birchall; P Dean; C Doherty; K Ferguson; J Gimblett; M Grocott; T Jacob; C Kerawala; P Macnaughton; P Magennis; R Moonesinghe; P Twose; S Wallace; A Higgs Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2020-06-05 Impact factor: 12.893