Royal Oldham Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Department of Anaesthesia, Royal United Hospitals Bath NHS Trust, Bath, UK.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Apr 4;4(4):CD011136. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub3.
Tracheal intubation is a common procedure performed to secure the airway in adults undergoing surgery or those who are critically ill. Intubation is sometimes associated with difficulties and complications that may result in patient harm. While it is traditionally achieved by performing direct laryngoscopy, the past three decades have seen the advent of rigid indirect videolaryngoscopes (VLs). A mounting body of evidence comparing the two approaches to tracheal intubation has been acquired over this period of time. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016.
To assess whether use of different designs of VLs in adults requiring tracheal intubation reduces the failure rate compared with direct laryngoscopy, and assess the benefits and risks of these devices in selected population groups, users and settings.
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 27 February 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and conducted forward and backward citation searches.
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with adults undergoing laryngoscopy performed with either a VL or a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL) in any clinical setting. We included parallel and cross-over study designs.
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for the following outcomes: failed intubation, hypoxaemia, successful first attempt at tracheal intubation, oesophageal intubation, dental trauma, Cormack-Lehane grade, and time for tracheal intubation.
We included 222 studies (219 RCTs, three quasi-RCTs) with 26,149 participants undergoing tracheal intubation. Most studies recruited adults undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation. Twenty-one studies recruited participants with a known or predicted difficult airway, and an additional 25 studies simulated a difficult airway. Twenty-one studies were conducted outside the operating theatre environment; of these, six were in the prehospital setting, seven in the emergency department and eight in the intensive care unit. We report here the findings of the three main comparisons according to videolaryngoscopy device type. We downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision, study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), inconsistency when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity and publication bias. Macintosh-style videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (61 studies, 9883 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that a Macintosh-style VL probably reduces rates of failed intubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.65; 41 studies, 4615 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99; 16 studies, 2127 participants). These devices may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 42 studies, 7311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view when assessed as Cormack-Lehane grade 3 and 4 (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.48; 38 studies, 4368 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.21; 14 studies, 2404 participants) but this finding was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.89; 18 studies, 2297 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I = 96%). Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (96 studies, 11,438 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 63 studies, 7146 participants) and oesophageal intubation (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.81; 14 studies, 1968 participants). In subgroup analysis, we noted that hyperangulated VLs were more likely to reduce failed intubation when used on known or predicted difficult airways (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48; P = 0.03 for subgroup differences; 15 studies, 1520 participants). We also found that these devices may increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05; 66 studies, 8086 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the glottic view is probably also improved (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.24; 54 studies, 6058 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we found low-certainty evidence of little or no clear difference in rates of hypoxaemia (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.11; 15 studies, 1691 participants), and the findings for dental trauma were unclear because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.59; 30 studies, 3497 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I = 99%). Channelled videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (73 studies, 7165 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that channelled VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.61; 53 studies, 5367 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.50; 15 studies, 1966 participants). They may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 47 studies, 5210 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.21; 40 studies, 3955 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.75; 16 studies, 1756 participants) but this was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.12; 29 studies, 2375 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I = 98%).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: VLs of all designs likely reduce rates of failed intubation and result in higher rates of successful intubation on the first attempt with improved glottic views. Macintosh-style and channelled VLs likely reduce rates of hypoxaemic events, while hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of oesophageal intubation. We conclude that videolaryngoscopy likely provides a safer risk profile compared to direct laryngoscopy for all adults undergoing tracheal intubation.
气管插管是一种常见的手术,用于确保成人在手术过程中或病危时的气道通畅。插管有时会出现困难和并发症,可能导致患者受到伤害。虽然传统上通过直接喉镜检查来实现,但在过去的三十年中,刚性间接视频喉镜 (VL) 的出现已经取得了很大的进展。在这段时间里,已经积累了大量比较两种气管插管方法的证据。这是一篇发表于 2016 年的 Cochrane 综述的更新。
评估在需要气管插管的成年人中,使用不同设计的 VL 与直接喉镜检查相比,是否能降低失败率,并评估这些设备在特定人群、使用者和环境中的益处和风险。
我们于 2021 年 2 月 27 日检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL 和 Web of Science。我们还检索了临床试验数据库、会议论文集,并进行了向前和向后的引文搜索。
我们纳入了随机对照试验 (RCT) 和准随机对照试验,这些试验将成人的喉镜检查与任何临床环境中的 VL 或 Macintosh 直接喉镜 (DL) 进行了比较。我们纳入了平行和交叉研究设计。
我们使用了 Cochrane 预期的标准方法学程序。我们收集了以下结局的数据:插管失败、低氧血症、首次气管插管成功、食管插管、牙齿损伤、Cormack-Lehane 分级和气管插管时间。
我们纳入了 222 项研究(219 项 RCT,3 项准 RCT),共 26149 名参与者接受了气管插管。大多数研究招募了需要气管插管的择期手术的成年人。21 项研究招募了已知或预测有困难气道的参与者,另外 25 项研究模拟了困难气道。21 项研究在手术室环境之外进行;其中 6 项在院前环境中,7 项在急诊科,8 项在重症监护病房。我们在此报告根据视频喉镜设备类型进行的三个主要比较的结果。我们降低了因不精确、研究局限性(如高或不清楚的偏倚风险)、我们注意到存在实质性统计学异质性以及发表偏倚的结局的确定性。Macintosh 式 VL 与直接喉镜检查(61 项研究,9883 名参与者)我们发现,Macintosh 式 VL 可能降低插管失败率的证据具有中等确定性(RR 0.41,95%置信区间 [CI] 0.26 至 0.65;41 项研究,4615 名参与者)和低氧血症(RR 0.72,95%CI 0.52 至 0.99;16 项研究,2127 名参与者)。这些设备可能还会增加首次插管尝试的成功率(RR 1.05,95%CI 1.02 至 1.09;42 项研究,7311 名参与者;低确定性证据),并可能改善声门视图,当评估为 Cormack-Lehane 分级 3 和 4 时(RR 0.38,95%CI 0.29 至 0.48;38 项研究,4368 名参与者;中等确定性证据)。我们发现食管插管的发生率几乎没有或没有明显差异(RR 0.51,95%CI 0.22 至 1.21;14 项研究,2404 名参与者),但这一发现的证据确定性较低。由于证据的确定性非常低,我们对牙齿损伤的结果不确定(RR 0.68,95%CI 0.16 至 2.89;18 项研究,2297 名参与者)。由于存在很大的异质性,我们无法对气管插管所需时间的数据进行汇总(I = 96%)。高角 VL 与直接喉镜检查(96 项研究,11438 名参与者)我们发现,高角 VL 可能降低插管失败率的证据具有中等确定性(RR 0.51,95%CI 0.34 至 0.76;63 项研究,7146 名参与者)和食管插管(RR 0.39,95%CI 0.18 至 0.81;14 项研究,1968 名参与者)。在亚组分析中,我们注意到高角 VL 在已知或预测的困难气道中更有可能降低插管失败率(RR 0.29,95%CI 0.17 至 0.48;P = 0.03 用于亚组差异;15 项研究,1520 名参与者)。我们还发现这些设备可能增加首次插管尝试的成功率(RR 1.03,95%CI 1.00 至 1.05;66 项研究,8086 名参与者;低确定性证据),并可能改善声门视图(RR 0.15,95%CI 0.10 至 0.24;54 项研究,6058 名参与者;数据为 Cormack-Lehane 分级 3/4 视图;中等确定性证据)。然而,我们发现低氧血症的发生率几乎没有或没有明显差异的低确定性证据(RR 0.49,95%CI 0.22 至 1.11;15 项研究,1691 名参与者),牙齿损伤的结果也不清楚,因为证据的确定性非常低(RR 0.51,95%CI 0.16 至 1.59;30 项研究,3497 名参与者)。由于存在很大的异质性,我们无法对气管插管所需时间的数据进行汇总(I = 99%)。槽式 VL 与直接喉镜检查(73 项研究,7165 名参与者)我们发现,槽式 VL 可能降低插管失败率的证据具有中等确定性(RR 0.43,95%CI 0.30 至 0.61;53 项研究,5367 名参与者)和低氧血症(RR 0.25,95%CI 0.12 至 0.50;15 项研究,1966 名参与者)。它们还可能增加首次插管尝试的成功率(RR 1.10,95%CI 1.05 至 1.15;47 项研究,5210 名参与者;非常低确定性证据),并可能改善声门视图(RR 0.14,95%CI 0.09 至 0.21;40 项研究,3955 名参与者;数据为 Cormack-Lehane 分级 3/4 视图;中等确定性证据)。我们发现食管插管的发生率几乎没有或没有明显差异(RR 0.54,95%CI 0.17 至 1.75;16 项研究,1756 名参与者),但这一发现的证据确定性较低。我们对牙齿损伤的结果不确定,因为证据的确定性非常低(RR 0.52,95%CI 0.13 至 2.12;29 项研究,2375 名参与者)。由于存在很大的异质性,我们无法对气管插管所需时间的数据进行汇总(I = 98%)。
VL 可能为所有接受气管插管的成年人提供更安全的风险概况。Macintosh 式和槽式 VL 可能降低低氧血症的发生率,而高角 VL 可能降低食管插管的发生率。我们的结论是,与直接喉镜检查相比,视频喉镜检查可能为所有成年人提供更安全的风险状况。