Sun Yu, Lu Yi, Huang Yan, Jiang Hong
Department of Anesthesiology, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital Affiliated to Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China.
Paediatr Anaesth. 2014 Oct;24(10):1056-65. doi: 10.1111/pan.12458. Epub 2014 Jun 24.
We reviewed the updated literature and performed a meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials in children to compare the clinical efficacy between video laryngoscopes (VLs) and direct laryngoscopes (DLs).
We searched articles published in English matching the key words 'video laryngoscope (including Airtraq, GlideScope, Storz, TruView, AWS, Bullard, McGrath)' AND 'direct laryngoscope' AND 'children (including pediatric, infant, neonate)' in PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library databases. Only prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared the use of VLs and DLs in children, were included. The relative risk (RR), weighted mean difference (WMD), and their corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were calculated using the quality effects model of the metaxl 1.3 software for outcome data.
Fourteen studies were included in this meta-analysis. Although VLs improved the glottis visualization in most children either with normal airways or with potentially difficult intubations, the time to intubation (TTI) was prolonged in comparison to DLs (WMD: 4.9 s; 95% CI: 2.6-7.1). Subgroup analysis showed the GlideScope (WMD: 5.2 s; 95% CI: 2.0-8.5), TruView (WMD: 5.1 s; 95% CI: 0.7-9.5), Storz (WMD: 6.4 s; 95% CI: 4.8-8.1), and Bullard (WMD: 37.5 s; 95% CI: 21.0-54.0) rather than Airtraq (WMD: 0.6 s; 95% CI: -7.7-8.9) prolonged TTI. Although the success rate of the first attempt (RR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.92-1.00) and associated complications (RR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.39-3.16) were similar in both groups, VLs were associated with a higher incidence of failure (RR: 6.70; 95% CI: 1.53-29.39).
This meta-analysis demonstrates that although VLs improved glottis visualization in pediatric patients, this was at the expense of prolonged TTI and increased failures. However, further studies are needed to clarify the efficacy and safety of VLs in hands of nonexperts and in children with airway problems.
我们回顾了最新文献,并基于儿童随机对照试验进行了一项荟萃分析,以比较视频喉镜(VLs)和直接喉镜(DLs)之间的临床疗效。
我们在PubMed、Ovid、谷歌学术和考克兰图书馆数据库中搜索了以英文发表的文章,其关键词为“视频喉镜(包括Airtraq、GlideScope、Storz、TruView、AWS、Bullard、McGrath)”、“直接喉镜”和“儿童(包括儿科、婴儿、新生儿)”。仅纳入了比较VLs和DLs在儿童中使用情况的前瞻性随机对照试验(RCTs)。使用metaxl 1.3软件的质量效应模型计算结局数据的相对风险(RR)、加权平均差(WMD)及其相应的95%置信区间(95%CI)。
本荟萃分析纳入了14项研究。尽管VLs在大多数气道正常或可能存在插管困难的儿童中改善了声门可视化,但与DLs相比,插管时间(TTI)延长了(WMD:4.9秒;95%CI:2.6 - 7.1)。亚组分析显示,GlideScope(WMD:5.2秒;95%CI:2.0 - 8.5)、TruView(WMD:5.1秒;95%CI:0.7 - 9.5)、Storz(WMD:6.4秒;95%CI:4.8 - 8.1)和Bullard(WMD:37.5秒;95%CI:21.0 - 54.0)而非Airtraq(WMD:0.6秒;95%CI: - 7.7 - 8.9)延长了TTI。尽管两组首次尝试的成功率(RR:0.96;95%CI:0.92 - 1.00)和相关并发症(RR:1.11;95%CI:0.39 - 3.16)相似,但VLs的失败发生率更高(RR:6.70;95%CI:1.53 - 29.39)。
本荟萃分析表明,尽管VLs改善了儿科患者的声门可视化,但这是以延长TTI和增加失败率为代价的。然而,需要进一步研究以阐明VLs在非专家手中以及在气道问题儿童中的疗效和安全性。