Literature DB >> 29761867

Airway physical examination tests for detection of difficult airway management in apparently normal adult patients.

Dominik Roth1, Nathan L Pace, Anna Lee, Karen Hovhannisyan, Alexandra-Maria Warenits, Jasmin Arrich, Harald Herkner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The unanticipated difficult airway is a potentially life-threatening event during anaesthesia or acute conditions. An unsuccessfully managed upper airway is associated with serious morbidity and mortality. Several bedside screening tests are used in clinical practice to identify those at high risk of difficult airway. Their accuracy and benefit however, remains unclear.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to characterize and compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Mallampati classification and other commonly used airway examination tests for assessing the physical status of the airway in adult patients with no apparent anatomical airway abnormalities. We performed this individually for each of the four descriptors of the difficult airway: difficult face mask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult tracheal intubation, and failed intubation. SEARCH
METHODS: We searched major electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, as well as regional, subject specific, and dissertation and theses databases from inception to 16 December 2016, without language restrictions. In addition, we searched the Science Citation Index and checked the references of all the relevant studies. We also handsearched selected journals, conference proceedings, and relevant guidelines. We updated this search in March 2018, but we have not yet incorporated these results. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered full-text diagnostic test accuracy studies of any individual index test, or a combination of tests, against a reference standard. Participants were adults without obvious airway abnormalities, who were having laryngoscopy performed with a standard laryngoscope and the trachea intubated with a standard tracheal tube. Index tests included the Mallampati test, modified Mallampati test, Wilson risk score, thyromental distance, sternomental distance, mouth opening test, upper lip bite test, or any combination of these. The target condition was difficult airway, with one of the following reference standards: difficult face mask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult tracheal intubation, and failed intubation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed screening and selection of the studies, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality (using QUADAS-2) independently and in duplicate. We designed a Microsoft Access database for data collection and used Review Manager 5 and R for data analysis. For each index test and each reference standard, we assessed sensitivity and specificity. We produced forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots to summarize the data. Where possible, we performed meta-analyses to calculate pooled estimates and compare test accuracy indirectly using bivariate models. We investigated heterogeneity and performed sensitivity analyses. MAIN
RESULTS: We included 133 (127 cohort type and 6 case-control) studies involving 844,206 participants. We evaluated a total of seven different prespecified index tests in the 133 studies, as well as 69 non-prespecified, and 32 combinations. For the prespecified index tests, we found six studies for the Mallampati test, 105 for the modified Mallampati test, six for the Wilson risk score, 52 for thyromental distance, 18 for sternomental distance, 34 for the mouth opening test, and 30 for the upper lip bite test. Difficult face mask ventilation was the reference standard in seven studies, difficult laryngoscopy in 92 studies, difficult tracheal intubation in 50 studies, and failed intubation in two studies. Across all studies, we judged the risk of bias to be variable for the different domains; we mostly observed low risk of bias for patient selection, flow and timing, and unclear risk of bias for reference standard and index test. Applicability concerns were generally low for all domains. For difficult laryngoscopy, the summary sensitivity ranged from 0.22 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.33; mouth opening test) to 0.67 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; upper lip bite test) and the summary specificity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85; modified Mallampati test) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; Wilson risk score). The upper lip bite test for diagnosing difficult laryngoscopy provided the highest sensitivity compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, summary sensitivity ranged from 0.24 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.43; thyromental distance) to 0.51 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.61; modified Mallampati test) and the summary specificity ranged from 0.87 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; modified Mallampati test) to 0.93 (0.87 to 0.96; mouth opening test). The modified Mallampati test had the highest sensitivity for diagnosing difficult tracheal intubation compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult face mask ventilation, we could only estimate summary sensitivity (0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39) and specificity (0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95) for the modified Mallampati test. AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: Bedside airway examination tests, for assessing the physical status of the airway in adults with no apparent anatomical airway abnormalities, are designed as screening tests. Screening tests are expected to have high sensitivities. We found that all investigated index tests had relatively low sensitivities with high variability. In contrast, specificities were consistently and markedly higher than sensitivities across all tests. The standard bedside airway examination tests should be interpreted with caution, as they do not appear to be good screening tests. Among the tests we examined, the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties. Given the paucity of available data, future research is needed to develop tests with high sensitivities to make them useful, and to consider their use for screening difficult face mask ventilation and failed intubation. The 27 studies in 'Studies awaiting classification' may alter the conclusions of the review, once we have assessed them.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29761867      PMCID: PMC6404686          DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008874.pub2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  178 in total

1.  Difficult endotracheal intubation in patients with sleep apnea syndrome.

Authors:  Mohammad A Siyam; Dan Benhamou
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 5.108

2.  Comparison of two methods for predicting difficult intubation.

Authors:  J D Oates; A D Macleod; P D Oates; F J Pearsall; J C Howie; G D Murray
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  1991-03       Impact factor: 9.166

3.  [Diagnostic utility of the hyomental distance ratio as predictor of difficult intubation at UMAE 25].

Authors:  Jair Marino Montemayor-Cruz; Rosa Ma Guerrero-Ledezma
Journal:  Gac Med Mex       Date:  2015 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 0.302

4.  Mallampati class, obesity, and a novel airway trajectory measurement to predict difficult laryngoscopy.

Authors:  Scott L Lee; Clint Hosford; Quyen T Lee; Steve M Parnes; Stanley M Shapshay
Journal:  Laryngoscope       Date:  2014-07-17       Impact factor: 3.325

5.  Incidences and predictors of difficult laryngoscopy in adult patients undergoing general anesthesia : a single-center analysis of 102,305 cases.

Authors:  S Heinrich; T Birkholz; A Irouschek; A Ackermann; J Schmidt
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2013-06-09       Impact factor: 2.078

6.  Evaluation of the upper lip bite test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy.

Authors:  Neelima Myneni; Anthony M O'Leary; Michael Sandison; Kevin Roberts
Journal:  J Clin Anesth       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 9.452

7.  Predicting difficult intubation.

Authors:  C M Frerk
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 6.955

8.  Neck circumference to inter-incisor gap ratio: a new predictor of difficult laryngoscopy in cervical spondylosis patients.

Authors:  Yong-Zheng Han; Yang Tian; Mao Xu; Cheng Ni; Min Li; Jun Wang; Xiang-Yang Guo
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 2.217

9.  Determining the Efficiency of Different Preoperative Difficult Intubation Tests on Patients Undergoing Caesarean Section.

Authors:  İlker Yıldırım; Mehmet Turan İnal; Dilek Memiş; F Nesrin Turan
Journal:  Balkan Med J       Date:  2017-04-13       Impact factor: 2.021

10.  Predictive factors for difficult mask ventilation in the obese surgical population.

Authors:  Davide Cattano; Anastasia Katsiampoura; Ruggero M Corso; Peter V Killoran; Chunyan Cai; Carin A Hagberg
Journal:  F1000Res       Date:  2014-10-09
View more
  27 in total

Review 1.  Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation.

Authors:  Jan Hansel; Andrew M Rogers; Sharon R Lewis; Tim M Cook; Andrew F Smith
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2022-04-04

2.  Pharynx volume derived from three-dimensional computed tomography is associated with difficult intubation in spinal deformity surgery: A retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  Xiaoyan Li; Bei An; Bailin Jiang; Shuai Xu; Haiying Liu; Hong Zhao
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2022-10-14       Impact factor: 1.817

3.  Sternomental Distance Ratio as a Predictor of Difficult Laryngoscopy: A Prospective, Double-Blind Pilot Study.

Authors:  Evangelia Kopanaki; Maria Piagkou; Theano Demesticha; Emmanouil Anastassiou; Panagiotis Skandalakis
Journal:  Anesth Essays Res       Date:  2020-03-11

4.  Prevalence of calcified epiglottis in postmortem computed tomography. Is there a correlation to failed endotracheal intubation?

Authors:  Garyfalia Ampanozi; Sabine Franckenberg; Wolf Schweitzer; Michael J Thali; Vasiliki Chatzaraki
Journal:  Dentomaxillofac Radiol       Date:  2021-02-17       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 5.  Local anesthetic systemic toxicity: current perspectives.

Authors:  Kariem El-Boghdadly; Amit Pawa; Ki Jinn Chin
Journal:  Local Reg Anesth       Date:  2018-08-08

6.  Analysis of factors related to chronic cough after lung cancer surgery.

Authors:  Ming-Ran Xie; Yong-Fu Zhu; Mei-Qi Zhou; Sheng-Bing Wu; Guang-Wen Xu; Shi-Bin Xu; Mei-Qing Xu
Journal:  Thorac Cancer       Date:  2019-03-15       Impact factor: 3.500

7.  Preoxygenation in difficult airway management: high-flow oxygenation by nasal cannula versus face mask (the PREOPTIDAM study). Protocol for a single-centre randomised study.

Authors:  Mickael Vourc'h; Donatien Huard; Fanny Feuillet; Gabrielle Baud; Arthur Guichoux; Marielle Surbled; Melanie Tissot; Anne Chiffoleau; Christophe Guitton; Samir Jaber; Karim Asehnoune
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-04-25       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  The HEAVEN criteria predict laryngoscopic view and intubation success for both direct and video laryngoscopy: a cohort analysis.

Authors:  Fauzia Nausheen; Nichole P Niknafs; Derek J MacLean; David J Olvera; Allen C Wolfe; Troy W Pennington; Daniel P Davis
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2019-04-24       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Association of Mallampati scoring on airway outcomes in women undergoing general anesthesia with Supreme™ laryngeal mask airway in cesarean section.

Authors:  Hon Sen Tan; Shi Yang Li; Wei Yu Yao; Yong Jing Yuan; Rehena Sultana; Nian-Lin R Han; Alex Tiong Heng Sia; Ban Leong Sng
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2019-07-08       Impact factor: 2.217

Review 10.  Airway physical examination tests for detection of difficult airway management in apparently normal adult patients.

Authors:  Dominik Roth; Nathan L Pace; Anna Lee; Karen Hovhannisyan; Alexandra-Maria Warenits; Jasmin Arrich; Harald Herkner
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-05-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.