From the Department of Anaesthesia, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (LK, MFS, BP) and Department of Anaesthesia, University Medical Centre, Ljubljana, Slovenia (DJ).
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018 Aug;35(8):558-565. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000813.
Although an emergency surgical airway is recommended in the guidelines for a paediatric cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate (CICO), there is currently no evidence regarding the best technique for this procedure.
To review the available literature on the paediatric emergency surgical airway to give recommendations for establishing a best practice for this procedure.
Systematic review: Considering the nature of the original studies, a meta-analysis was not possible.
MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Google Scholar and LILACS databases.
Studies addressing the paediatric emergency surgical airway and reporting the following outcomes: time to tracheal access, success rate, complications and perceived ease of use of the technique were included. Data were reported using a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats analysis. Strengths and Weaknesses describe the intrinsic (dis)advantages of the techniques. The opportunities and threats describe the (dis)advantage of the techniques in the setting of a paediatric CICO scenario.
Five studies described four techniques: catheter over needle, wire-guided, cannula or scalpel technique. Mean time for placement of a definitive airway was 44 s for catheter over needle, 67.3 s for the cannula and 108.7 s for the scalpel technique. No time was reported for the wire-guided technique. Success rates were 43 (10/23), 100 (16/16), 56 (87/154) and 88% (51/58), respectively. Complication rates were 34 (3/10), 69 (11/16), 36 (55/151) and 38% (18/48), respectively. Analysis shows: catheter over needle, quick but with a high failure rate; wire-guided, high success rate but high complication rate; cannula, less complications but high failure rate; scalpel, high success rate but longer procedural time. The available data are limited and heterogeneous in terms of reported studies; thus, these results need to be interpreted with caution.
The absence of best practice evidence necessitates further studies to provide a clear advice on best practice management for the paediatric emergency surgical airway in the CICO scenario.
尽管指南建议对小儿无法插管-无法给氧(CICO)患者行紧急外科气道,但目前尚无关于该手术最佳技术的证据。
回顾小儿紧急外科气道的现有文献,为该手术提供最佳实践建议。
系统评价:鉴于原始研究的性质,不可能进行荟萃分析。
MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane 对照试验中心注册库、护理学和联合健康文献累积索引、Web of Science、Google Scholar 和 LILACS 数据库。
纳入探讨小儿紧急外科气道并报告以下结局的研究:气管进入时间、成功率、并发症和技术易用性感知。使用优势、劣势、机会和威胁分析报告数据。优势和劣势描述技术的内在(缺点)优势。机会和威胁描述在小儿 CICO 情况下技术的(缺点)优势。
5 项研究描述了 4 种技术:导管针芯、导丝引导、套管或手术刀技术。确定性气道置入的平均时间为导管针芯 44 秒,套管 67.3 秒,手术刀 108.7 秒。未报告导丝引导技术的时间。成功率分别为 43%(10/23)、100%(16/16)、56%(87/154)和 88%(51/58)。并发症发生率分别为 34%(3/10)、69%(11/16)、36%(55/151)和 38%(18/48)。分析显示:导管针芯,快速但失败率高;导丝引导,成功率高但并发症发生率高;套管,并发症少但失败率高;手术刀,成功率高但手术时间长。现有数据有限,且报告研究存在异质性,因此需要谨慎解释这些结果。
缺乏最佳实践证据,需要进一步研究为 CICO 情况下小儿紧急外科气道的最佳实践管理提供明确建议。