Perry Jeffrey Joseph, Lee Jacques, Wells George
Division of Emergency Medicine, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Acad Emerg Med. 2002 Aug;9(8):813-23. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb02170.x.
To determine whether the intubation conditions created by rocuronium are equivalent to those of succinylcholine during rapid-sequence induction (RSI).
Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). The search strategy included all generic and trade names for succinylcholine and rocuronium, anesthesia, neuromuscular blockade, and a validated RCT filter. Intubation conditions were a required outcome. Two reviewers assessed studies for eligibility, data extraction, and quality. Intubation conditions were scored with Goldberg's scale (excellent conditions defined as clear vocal cords, easy tube insertion, and no cough). A-priori subgroup analysis was conducted for the sedative, use of opioids, true versus modified RSI, age group, and the dose of rocuronium. Data were analyzed with Metaview 4.1 for relative risk (RR) of achieving excellent intubation conditions. A sample size calculation determined that n = 468 is required for equivalence.
Forty articles were identified; ten articles were excluded by the inclusion criteria, two were duplicate publications, and two had insufficient data. Therefore, 26 studies were analyzed. Overall, rocuronium was inferior to succinylcholine, with a RR = 0.87 (95% CI = 0.81 to 0.94) (N = 1,606). However, intubation conditions were similar in the propofol subgroup, with a RR = 0.96 (95% CI = 0.87 to 1.06) (N = 640). Failed intubations (N = 28) were equivalent in the two groups.
Overall, succinylcholine creates excellent intubation conditions more reliably than rocuronium. If a second-line agent is required, rocuronium used with propofol creates intubation conditions equivalent to those with succinylcholine.
确定在快速顺序诱导(RSI)期间,罗库溴铵产生的插管条件是否等同于琥珀酰胆碱产生的插管条件。
检索Medline、EMBASE和Cochrane对照试验注册库,查找随机临床试验(RCT)。检索策略包括琥珀酰胆碱和罗库溴铵的所有通用名和商品名、麻醉、神经肌肉阻滞以及经过验证的RCT筛选器。插管条件是必需的结果。两名评审员评估研究的 eligibility、数据提取和质量。插管条件用Goldberg量表评分(良好条件定义为声带清晰、插管容易且无咳嗽)。对镇静剂、阿片类药物的使用、真性与改良RSI、年龄组以及罗库溴铵的剂量进行预先设定的亚组分析。使用Metaview 4.1分析数据,以获取达到良好插管条件的相对风险(RR)。样本量计算确定等效性需要n = 468。
共识别出40篇文章;10篇文章被纳入标准排除,2篇为重复发表,2篇数据不足。因此,分析了26项研究。总体而言,罗库溴铵不如琥珀酰胆碱,RR = 0.87(95% CI = 0.81至0.94)(N = 1,606)。然而,在丙泊酚亚组中,插管条件相似,RR = 0.96(95% CI = 0.87至1.06)(N = 640)。两组的插管失败情况(N = 28)相当。
总体而言,琥珀酰胆碱比罗库溴铵更可靠地创造良好的插管条件。如果需要二线药物,罗库溴铵与丙泊酚联合使用可产生与琥珀酰胆碱相当的插管条件。