Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2022
Airtraq® versus GlideScope® for tracheal intubation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hoshijima Hiroshi, Mihara Takahiro, Denawa Yohei, Shiga Toshiya, Mizuta Kentaro
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In recent years, various types of indirect laryngoscopes have been developed. Nevertheless, no conclusions have been drawn about which type of indirect laryngoscope is most effective for tracheal intubation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the Airtraq® or the GlideScope® is more effective for tracheal intubation.
METHODS: We extracted studies of adult prospective randomized trials comparing tracheal intubation between the Airtraq and GlideScope. An electronic database was used to extract the studies included in our meta-analysis. We extracted the following data from the identified studies: success rate, glottic visualization, and intubation time. Data from each trial were combined via a random-effects model for calculation of pooled relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed trial sequential analysis.
RESULTS: We included eight trials comprising 571 patients for review. Compared with the GlideScope, Airtraq did not improve success rate, glottic visualization, or intubation time in tracheal intubation (success rate: RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.05; P = 0.58; I2 = 65%; glottic visualization: RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.29; P = 0.69; I2 = 64%; and intubation time: WMD, 1.4 seconds ; 95% CI, -6.2 to 9.1; P = 0.72; I2 = 96%). The quality of evidence was graded as "very low." Trial sequential analysis showed that total sample size did not reach the required information size for all parameters.
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, use of the Airtraq indirect laryngoscope did not result in improved success rate, glottic visualization, or intubation time in tracheal intubation compared with the GlideScope. Trial sequential analysis suggests that further studies are necessary to confirm these findings.
METHODS: We extracted studies of adult prospective randomized trials comparing tracheal intubation between the Airtraq and GlideScope. An electronic database was used to extract the studies included in our meta-analysis. We extracted the following data from the identified studies: success rate, glottic visualization, and intubation time. Data from each trial were combined via a random-effects model for calculation of pooled relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed trial sequential analysis.
RESULTS: We included eight trials comprising 571 patients for review. Compared with the GlideScope, Airtraq did not improve success rate, glottic visualization, or intubation time in tracheal intubation (success rate: RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.05; P = 0.58; I2 = 65%; glottic visualization: RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.29; P = 0.69; I2 = 64%; and intubation time: WMD, 1.4 seconds ; 95% CI, -6.2 to 9.1; P = 0.72; I2 = 96%). The quality of evidence was graded as "very low." Trial sequential analysis showed that total sample size did not reach the required information size for all parameters.
CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, use of the Airtraq indirect laryngoscope did not result in improved success rate, glottic visualization, or intubation time in tracheal intubation compared with the GlideScope. Trial sequential analysis suggests that further studies are necessary to confirm these findings.