9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Videolaryngoscopy versus fiberoptic bronchoscope for awake intubation – a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Awake intubation with videolaryngoscopy (VL) is a novel method that is drawing more and more attention as an alternative to awake intubation with fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB). This meta-analysis is designed to determine the performance of VL compared to the FOB for awake intubation.

          Methods

          The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Web of science were searched from database inception until October 30, 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing VL and FOB for awake intubation were selected. The primary outcome was the overall success rate. Rev-Man 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible study. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence for all outcomes.

          Results

          Six studies (446 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis did not show any difference in the overall success rate by using VL and FOB (relative risk [RR], 1.00; P=0.99; high-quality evidence). There was no heterogeneity among studies ( I 2=0). Subgroup analyses showed no differences between two groups through nasal (RR, 1.00; P=1.00; high-quality evidence) and oral intubations (RR, 1.00; P=0.98; high-quality evidence). The intubation time was shorter by using VL than by using FOB (mean difference, −40.4 seconds; P<0.01; low-quality evidence). There were no differences between groups for other outcomes ( P>0.05).

          Conclusion

          For awake intubation, VL with a shorter intubation time is as effective and safe as FOB. VL may be a useful alternative to FOB.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Early clinical experience with a new videolaryngoscope (GlideScope) in 728 patients.

          To evaluate a new videolaryngoscope and assess its ability to provide laryngeal exposure and facilitate intubation. Five centres, involving 133 operators and a total of 728 consecutive patients, participated in the evaluation of a new video-laryngoscope [GlideScope (GS)]. Many operators had limited or no previous GS experience. We collected information about patient demographics and airway characteristics, Cormack-Lehane (C/L) views and the ease of intubation using the GS. Failure was defined as abandonment of the technique. Data from six patients were incomplete and were excluded. Excellent (C/L 1) or good (C/L 2) laryngeal exposure was obtained in 92% and 7% of patients respectively. In all 133 patients in whom both GS and direct laryngoscopy (DL) were performed, GS resulted in a comparable or superior view. Among the 35 patients with C/L grade 3 or 4 views by DL, the view improved to a C/L 1 view in 24 and a C/L 2 view in three patients. Intubation with the GS was successful in 96.3% of patients. The majority of the failures occurred despite a good or excellent glottic view. GS laryngoscopy consistently yielded a comparable or superior glottic view compared with DL despite the limited or lack of prior experience with the device. Successful intubation was generally achieved even when DL was predicted to be moderately or considerably difficult. GS was abandoned in 3.7% of patients. This may reflect the lack of a formal protocol defining failure, limited prior experience or difficulty manipulating the endotracheal tube while viewing a monitor.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Routine clinical practice effectiveness of the Glidescope in difficult airway management: an analysis of 2,004 Glidescope intubations, complications, and failures from two institutions.

            The Glidescope video laryngoscope has been shown to be a useful tool to improve laryngeal view. However, its role in the daily routine of airway management remains poorly characterized. This investigation evaluated the use of the Glidescope at two academic medical centers. Electronic records from 71,570 intubations were reviewed, and 2,004 cases were identified where the Glidescope was used for airway management. We analyzed the success rate of Glidescope intubation in various intubation scenarios. In addition, the incidence and character of complications associated with Glidescope use were recorded. Predictors of Glidescope intubation failure were determined using a logistic regression analysis. Overall success for Glidescope intubation was 97% (1,944 of 2,004). As a primary technique, success was 98% (1,712 of 1,755), whereas success in patients with predictors of difficult direct laryngoscopy was 96% (1,377 of 1,428). Success for Glidescope intubation after failed direct laryngoscopy was 94% (224 of 239). Complications were noticed in 1% (21 of 2,004) of patients and mostly involved minor soft tissue injuries, but major complications, such as dental, pharyngeal, tracheal, or laryngeal injury, occurred in 0.3% (6 of 2,004) of patients. The strongest predictor of Glidescope failure was altered neck anatomy with presence of a surgical scar, radiation changes, or mass. These data demonstrate a high success rate of Glidescope intubation in both primary airway management and rescue-failed direct laryngoscopy. However, Glidescope intubation is not always successful and certain predictors of failure can be identified. Providers should maintain their competency with alternate methods of intubation, especially for patients with neck pathology.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The difficult airway with recommendations for management – Part 2 – The anticipated difficult airway

              Background Appropriate planning is crucial to avoid morbidity and mortality when difficulty is anticipated with airway management. Many guidelines developed by national societies have focused on management of difficulty encountered in the unconscious patient; however, little guidance appears in the literature on how best to approach the patient with an anticipated difficult airway. Methods To review this and other subjects, the Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) was re-formed. With representation from anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and critical care, CAFG members were assigned topics for review. As literature reviews were completed, results were presented and discussed during teleconferences and two face-to-face meetings. When appropriate, evidence- or consensus-based recommendations were made, and levels of evidence were assigned. Principal findings Previously published predictors of difficult direct laryngoscopy are widely known. More recent studies report predictors of difficult face mask ventilation, video laryngoscopy, use of a supraglottic device, and cricothyrotomy. All are important facets of a complete airway evaluation and must be considered when difficulty is anticipated with airway management. Many studies now document the increasing patient morbidity that occurs with multiple attempts at tracheal intubation. Therefore, when difficulty is anticipated, tracheal intubation after induction of general anesthesia should be considered only when success with the chosen device(s) can be predicted in a maximum of three attempts. Concomitant predicted difficulty using oxygenation by face mask or supraglottic device ventilation as a fallback makes an awake approach advisable. Contextual issues, such as patient cooperation, availability of additional skilled help, and the clinician’s experience, must also be considered in deciding the appropriate strategy. Conclusions With an appropriate airway evaluation and consideration of relevant contextual issues, a rational decision can be made on whether an awake approach to tracheal intubation will maximize patient safety or if airway management can safely proceed after induction of general anesthesia. With predicted difficulty, close attention should be paid to details of implementing the chosen approach. This should include having a plan in case of the failure of tracheal intubation or patient oxygenation.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-6336
                1178-203X
                2018
                15 October 2018
                : 14
                : 1955-1963
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100020, China
                [2 ]Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Affiliated to Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100010, China
                [3 ]Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100050, China, xuefushan@ 123456aliyun.com
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Fu-Shan Xue, Department of Anesthesiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, No 95 Yong-An Road, Xi-Cheng District, Beijing 100050, China, Tel +86 139 1117 7655, Fax +86 10 6313 8362, Email xuefushan@ 123456aliyun.com
                Article
                tcrm-14-1955
                10.2147/TCRM.S172783
                6197207
                © 2018 Jiang et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article