Ryan Howle1, Desire Onwochei2,3, Siew-Ling Harrison2, Neel Desai2,3. 1. Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. ryanhowle@doctors.org.uk. 2. Department of Anaesthesia, Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. 3. King's College London, London, UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The incidence of difficult and failed intubation is higher in obstetrical patients than in the general population because of anatomic and physiologic changes in pregnancy. Videolaryngoscopy improves the success rate of intubation and reduces complications when compared with direct laryngoscopy in adults; however, it is not known whether this extends to obstetrical surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy, efficiency, and safety of videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy in obstetrics. SOURCE: Central, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 27 May 2020 with no restrictions. Inclusion criteria included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case series, and case reports that reported the application of videolaryngoscopy to intubate the trachea in pregnant patients having general anesthesia. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall, four RCTs with 428 participants, nine observational studies, and 35 case reports/series with 100 participants were included. On meta-analysis of three trials, the co-primary outcomes of first-attempt success rate (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.98 to 1.06; P = 0.29; I2 = 0%) and time to tracheal intubation (mean difference, 1.20 sec; 95% CI, -6.63 to 9.04; P = 0.76; I2 = 95%) demonstrated no difference between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in parturients without difficult airways. Observational studies and case reports underline the role of videolaryngoscopy as a primary choice when difficulty with tracheal intubation is expected or as a rescue modality in difficult or failed intubations. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the utility of videolaryngoscopy continues to evolve but supports its increased adoption in obstetrics where videolaryngoscopes should be immediately available for use as a first-line device. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020189521); registered 6 July 2020.
PURPOSE: The incidence of difficult and failed intubation is higher in obstetrical patients than in the general population because of anatomic and physiologic changes in pregnancy. Videolaryngoscopy improves the success rate of intubation and reduces complications when compared with direct laryngoscopy in adults; however, it is not known whether this extends to obstetrical surgery. The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy, efficiency, and safety of videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy in obstetrics. SOURCE: Central, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to 27 May 2020 with no restrictions. Inclusion criteria included randomized-controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies, case series, and case reports that reported the application of videolaryngoscopy to intubate the trachea in pregnant patients having general anesthesia. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Overall, four RCTs with 428 participants, nine observational studies, and 35 case reports/series with 100 participants were included. On meta-analysis of three trials, the co-primary outcomes of first-attempt success rate (risk ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.98 to 1.06; P = 0.29; I2 = 0%) and time to tracheal intubation (mean difference, 1.20 sec; 95% CI, -6.63 to 9.04; P = 0.76; I2 = 95%) demonstrated no difference between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in parturients without difficult airways. Observational studies and case reports underline the role of videolaryngoscopy as a primary choice when difficulty with tracheal intubation is expected or as a rescue modality in difficult or failed intubations. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the utility of videolaryngoscopy continues to evolve but supports its increased adoption in obstetrics where videolaryngoscopes should be immediately available for use as a first-line device. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020189521); registered 6 July 2020.
Authors: E T Crosby; R M Cooper; M J Douglas; D J Doyle; O R Hung; P Labrecque; H Muir; M F Murphy; R P Preston; D K Rose; L Roy Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 1998-08 Impact factor: 5.063
Authors: Andrea J Traynor; Meredith Aragon; Debashis Ghosh; Ray S Choi; Colleen Dingmann; Zung Vu Tran; Brenda A Bucklin Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2016-06 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: S M Kinsella; A L Winton; M C Mushambi; K Ramaswamy; H Swales; A C Quinn; M Popat Journal: Int J Obstet Anesth Date: 2015-06-30 Impact factor: 2.603
Authors: J Adam Law; Laura V Duggan; Mathieu Asselin; Paul Baker; Edward Crosby; Andrew Downey; Orlando R Hung; Philip M Jones; François Lemay; Rudiger Noppens; Matteo Parotto; Roanne Preston; Nick Sowers; Kathryn Sparrow; Timothy P Turkstra; David T Wong; George Kovacs Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 5.063