Immersive Learning and Digital Innovations, Nursing Faculty, and Outcomes After Critical Illness and Surgery (OACIS) Research Group, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michigan State University College of Human Medicine, West Bloomfield, MI, USA.
Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2023 Aug;132(8):938-954. doi: 10.1177/00034894221123124. Epub 2022 Oct 2.
To investigate whether implementation of a multidisciplinary airway team was associated with improvement in (1) rate of successful airway securement at first attempt; (2) time to secure airway; and (3) overall complication rate in patients with a difficult airway, as compared with usual care.
Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases.
Systematic review of literature on inpatient multidisciplinary team management of difficult airways, including all studies performed in inpatient settings, excluding studies of ventilator weaning, flight/military medicine, EXIT procedures, and simulation or educational studies. DistillerSR was used for article screening and risk of a bias assessment to evaluate article quality. Data was extracted on study design, airway team composition, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes including airway securement, complications, and mortality.
From 5323 studies screened, 19 studies met inclusion criteria with 4675 patients. Study designs included 12 quality improvement projects, 6 cohort studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Four studies evaluated effect of multidisciplinary difficult airway teams on airway securement; all reported higher first attempt success rate with team approach. Three studies reported time to secure the difficult airways, all reporting swifter airway securement with team approach. The most common difficult airway complications were hypoxia, esophageal intubation, hemodynamic instability, and aspiration. Team composition varied, including otolaryngologists, anesthesiologists, intensivists, nurses, and respiratory care practitioners.
Multidisciplinary difficult airway teams are associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to unstructured emergency airway management; however, studies have significant heterogeneity in team composition, algorithms for airway securement, and outcomes reported. Further evidence is necessary to define the clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and best practices relating to implementing difficult airway teams in inpatient settings.
探讨多学科气道团队的实施是否与以下方面的改善相关:(1)首次尝试时成功气道建立的比率;(2)建立气道的时间;以及(3)与常规护理相比,困难气道患者的总体并发症发生率。
Ovid Medline、Embase、Scopus、Cochrane Central 和 CINAHL 数据库。
对困难气道多学科团队管理的住院患者文献进行系统评价,包括所有在住院环境中进行的研究,不包括通气机撤机、飞行/军事医学、EXIT 程序以及模拟或教育研究。使用 DistillerSR 进行文章筛选和偏倚风险评估,以评估文章质量。提取研究设计、气道团队组成、患者特征以及包括气道建立、并发症和死亡率在内的临床结局数据。
从筛选出的 5323 篇文章中,有 19 篇研究符合纳入标准,共有 4675 例患者。研究设计包括 12 项质量改进项目、6 项队列研究和 1 项随机对照试验。有 4 项研究评估了多学科困难气道团队对气道建立的影响;所有研究均报告团队方法的首次尝试成功率更高。有 3 项研究报告了建立困难气道的时间,所有研究均报告团队方法更快地建立气道。最常见的困难气道并发症是缺氧、食管插管、血流动力学不稳定和吸入。团队组成各不相同,包括耳鼻喉科医生、麻醉师、重症监护医师、护士和呼吸治疗师。
与非结构化急诊气道管理相比,多学科困难气道团队与改善的临床结局相关;然而,这些研究在团队组成、气道建立算法以及报告的结局方面存在显著异质性。需要进一步的证据来确定在住院环境中实施困难气道团队的临床疗效、成本效益和最佳实践。