Cargando…

Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscope (VL) compared with direct laryngoscope (DL) could reduce the occurrence of adverse events associated with tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients. METHODS: The current issue of Coch...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jiang, Jia, Kang, Na, Li, Bo, Wu, An-Shi, Xue, Fu-Shan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7006069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32033568
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-0702-7
_version_ 1783495065964904448
author Jiang, Jia
Kang, Na
Li, Bo
Wu, An-Shi
Xue, Fu-Shan
author_facet Jiang, Jia
Kang, Na
Li, Bo
Wu, An-Shi
Xue, Fu-Shan
author_sort Jiang, Jia
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscope (VL) compared with direct laryngoscope (DL) could reduce the occurrence of adverse events associated with tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients. METHODS: The current issue of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (from database inception to October 30, 2018) were searched. The RCTs, quasi-RCTs, observational studies comparing VL and DL for tracheal intubation in emergency or ICU patients and reporting the rates of adverse events were included. The primary outcome was the rate of esophageal intubation (EI). Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible RCT. The ACROBAT-NRSi Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was applied to assess the risk of bias for each eligible observational study. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (13,117 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis showed a lower rate of EI by using VL (relative risk [RR], 0.24; P < 0.01; high-quality evidence for RCTs and very low-quality evidence for observational studies). Subgroup analyses based on the type of studies, whether a cardiopulmonary resuscitation study, or operators’ expertise showed a similar lower rate of EI by using VL compared with DL in all subgroups (P < 0.01) except for experienced operators (RR, 0.44; P = 0.09). There were no significant differences between devices for other adverse events (P > 0.05), except for a lower incidence of hypoxemia when intubation was performed with VL by inexperienced operators (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, we conclude that compared with DL, VL can reduce the risk of EI during tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients, but does not provide significant benefits on other adverse events associated with tracheal intubation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7006069
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70060692020-02-11 Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis Jiang, Jia Kang, Na Li, Bo Wu, An-Shi Xue, Fu-Shan Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Review OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscope (VL) compared with direct laryngoscope (DL) could reduce the occurrence of adverse events associated with tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients. METHODS: The current issue of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (from database inception to October 30, 2018) were searched. The RCTs, quasi-RCTs, observational studies comparing VL and DL for tracheal intubation in emergency or ICU patients and reporting the rates of adverse events were included. The primary outcome was the rate of esophageal intubation (EI). Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible RCT. The ACROBAT-NRSi Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was applied to assess the risk of bias for each eligible observational study. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies (13,117 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis showed a lower rate of EI by using VL (relative risk [RR], 0.24; P < 0.01; high-quality evidence for RCTs and very low-quality evidence for observational studies). Subgroup analyses based on the type of studies, whether a cardiopulmonary resuscitation study, or operators’ expertise showed a similar lower rate of EI by using VL compared with DL in all subgroups (P < 0.01) except for experienced operators (RR, 0.44; P = 0.09). There were no significant differences between devices for other adverse events (P > 0.05), except for a lower incidence of hypoxemia when intubation was performed with VL by inexperienced operators (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this analysis, we conclude that compared with DL, VL can reduce the risk of EI during tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients, but does not provide significant benefits on other adverse events associated with tracheal intubation. BioMed Central 2020-02-07 /pmc/articles/PMC7006069/ /pubmed/32033568 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-0702-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Review
Jiang, Jia
Kang, Na
Li, Bo
Wu, An-Shi
Xue, Fu-Shan
Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and icu patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7006069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32033568
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-020-0702-7
work_keys_str_mv AT jiangjia comparisonofadverseeventsbetweenvideoanddirectlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationsinemergencydepartmentandicupatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT kangna comparisonofadverseeventsbetweenvideoanddirectlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationsinemergencydepartmentandicupatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT libo comparisonofadverseeventsbetweenvideoanddirectlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationsinemergencydepartmentandicupatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wuanshi comparisonofadverseeventsbetweenvideoanddirectlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationsinemergencydepartmentandicupatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT xuefushan comparisonofadverseeventsbetweenvideoanddirectlaryngoscopesfortrachealintubationsinemergencydepartmentandicupatientsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis