Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2021
Comparison of videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in obstetrics: a mixed-methods systematic review and meta-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.
Howle Ryan, Onwochei Desire, Harrison Siew-Ling, Desai Neel
Аннотация
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.
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.