Literature DB >> 35820934

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis update.

Jan Hansel1, Andrew M Rogers2, Sharon R Lewis3, Tim M Cook4, Andrew F Smith5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation is a commonly performed procedure that can be associated with complications and result in patient harm. Videolaryngoscopy (VL) may decrease this risk as compared with Macintosh direct laryngoscopy (DL). This review evaluates the risk and benefit profile of VL compared with DL in adults.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science on February 27, 2021. We included RCTs comparing VL with DL in patients undergoing tracheal intubation in any setting. We separately compared outcomes according to VL design: Macintosh-style, hyperangulated, and channelled.
RESULTS: A total of 222 RCTs (with 26 149 participants) were included. Most studies had unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, and all were at high risk of performance and detection bias. We found that videolaryngoscopes of any design likely reduce rates of failed intubation (Macintosh-style: risk ratio [RR]=0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.65; hyperangulated: RR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76; channelled: RR=0.43, 95% CI, 0.30-0.61; moderate-certainty evidence) with increased rates of successful intubation on first attempt and better glottic views across patient groups and settings. Hyperangulated designs are likely favourable in terms of reducing the rate of oesophageal intubation, and result in improved rates of successful intubation in individuals presenting with difficult airway features (P=0.03). We also present other patient-oriented outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of trials of adults undergoing tracheal intubation, VL was associated with fewer failed attempts and complications such as hypoxaemia, whereas glottic views were improved. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This article is based on a Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2022, Issue 4, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub3 (see www.cochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.
Copyright © 2022 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  airway management; laryngoscopy; meta-analysis; systematic review; tracheal intubation; videolaryngoscopy

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35820934      PMCID: PMC9575044          DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2022.05.027

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Anaesth        ISSN: 0007-0912            Impact factor:   11.719


  22 in total

Review 1.  Obesity in anaesthesia and intensive care.

Authors:  J P Adams; P G Murphy
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 9.166

2.  Learning curves of the Airtraq and the Macintosh laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation by novice laryngoscopists: a clinical study.

Authors:  Pierangelo Di Marco; Lorena Scattoni; Annamaria Spinoglio; Marta Luzi; Alessandra Canneti; Paolo Pietropaoli; Carlo Reale
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 5.108

Review 3.  Obesity and the lung: 3. Obesity, respiration and intensive care.

Authors:  A Malhotra; D Hillman
Journal:  Thorax       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 9.139

4.  Assessment of airway visualization: validation of the percentage of glottic opening (POGO) scale.

Authors:  R M Levitan; E A Ochroch; S Kush; F S Shofer; J E Hollander
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 3.451

5.  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 2: intensive care and emergency departments.

Authors:  T M Cook; N Woodall; J Harper; J Benger
Journal:  Br J Anaesth       Date:  2011-03-29       Impact factor: 9.166

6.  Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Authors:  Miranda Cumpston; Tianjing Li; Matthew J Page; Jacqueline Chandler; Vivian A Welch; Julian Pt Higgins; James Thomas
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-10-03

7.  Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics.

Authors:  R S Cormack; J Lehane
Journal:  Anaesthesia       Date:  1984-11       Impact factor: 6.955

Review 8.  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

Review 9.  Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation.

Authors:  Sharon R Lewis; Andrew R Butler; Joshua Parker; Tim M Cook; Andrew F Smith
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-11-15

10.  Efficacy of Pentax airway scope versus Macintosh laryngoscope when used by novice personnel: A prospective randomized controlled study.

Authors:  Kyu Nam Kim; Mi Ae Jeong; You Na Oh; Soo Yeon Kim; Ji Yoon Kim
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 1.671

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.