Hoshijima Hiroshi, Mihara Takahiro, Kokubu Shinichi, Takeda Sakura, Shiga Toshiya, Mizuta Kentaro
Division of Dento-Oral Anesthesiology, Graduate School of Dentistry, Tohoku University, Sendai 980-8575, Japan.
Department of Health Data Science, Graduate School of Data Science, Yokohama City University, Yokohama 236-0004, Japan.
Children (Basel). 2022 Aug 25;9(9):1280. doi: 10.3390/children9091280.
This research aimed to produce a coherent ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in pediatric patients using network meta-analysis (NMA). We searched the electric databases for prospective randomized studies that compared different tracheal intubation devices in pediatric patients. The primary outcome was intubation failure at the first attempt. Secondary outcomes were glottic visualization and intubation time. The statistical analysis performed used DerSimonian and Laird random-effects models. Frequentist network meta-analysis was conducted, and network plots and network league tables were produced. Subgroup analysis was performed after excluding rigid-fiberscope-type indirect laryngoscopes. Thirty-four trials comparing 13 devices were included. Most laryngoscopes had the same intubation failure rate as the Macintosh reference device. Only the Truview PCD™ had a significantly higher intubation failure rate than the Macintosh (odds ratio 4.78, 95% confidence interval 1.11-20.6) The highest-ranking laryngoscope was the Airtaq™ (P score, 0.90), and the AirwayScope™, McGrath™, and Truview EVO2™ ranked higher than the Macintosh. The Bullard™ had the lowest ranking (P score, 0.08). All laryngoscopes had the same level of glottic visualization as the Macintosh and only the C-MAC™ had a significantly shorter intubation time. Intubation time was significantly longer when using the GlideScope™, Storz DCI™, Truview PCD™, or Bullard™ compared with the Macintosh. P score and ranking of devices in the subgroup analyses were similar to those in the main analysis. We applied NMA to create a consistent ranking of the effectiveness of intubation devices in pediatric patients. The findings of NMA suggest that there is presently no laryngoscope superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope in terms of tracheal intubation failure rate and glottic visualization in pediatric patients.
本研究旨在通过网络荟萃分析(NMA)对儿科患者气管插管设备的有效性进行连贯排名。我们检索了电子数据库,以查找比较儿科患者不同气管插管设备的前瞻性随机研究。主要结局是首次尝试插管失败。次要结局是声门可视化和插管时间。进行的统计分析使用了DerSimonian和Laird随机效应模型。进行了频率学派网络荟萃分析,并生成了网络图和网络排行榜。在排除硬纤维镜型间接喉镜后进行亚组分析。纳入了比较13种设备的34项试验。大多数喉镜的插管失败率与麦金托什参考设备相同。只有Truview PCD™的插管失败率明显高于麦金托什喉镜(优势比4.78,95%置信区间1.11-20.6)。排名最高的喉镜是Airtaq™(P评分,0.90),AirwayScope™、McGrath™和Truview EVO2™的排名高于麦金托什喉镜。Bullard™排名最低(P评分,0.08)。所有喉镜的声门可视化水平与麦金托什喉镜相同,只有C-MAC™的插管时间明显更短。与麦金托什喉镜相比,使用GlideScope™、Storz DCI™、Truview PCD™或Bullard™时插管时间明显更长。亚组分析中设备的P评分和排名与主要分析中的相似。我们应用NMA对儿科患者气管插管设备的有效性进行一致排名。NMA的结果表明,就儿科患者的气管插管失败率和声门可视化而言,目前没有比麦金托什喉镜更优越的喉镜。