Nalubola Shreya, Jin Evan, Drugge Elizabeth D, Weber Garret, Abramowicz Apolonia E
Anesthesiology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, USA.
Anesthesiology, Westchester Medical Center, Valhalla, USA.
Cureus. 2022 Sep 25;14(9):e29578. doi: 10.7759/cureus.29578. eCollection 2022 Sep.
Video laryngoscopy (VL) is increasingly used in airway management and has been shown to decrease the rate of failed intubation in certain clinical scenarios, such as difficult airways. Training novices in intubation techniques requires them to practice on living patients; however, this is less than ideal from a safety perspective given the increased risk of complications after multiple attempts or failed intubation by inexperienced trainees. One setting in which VL may be beneficial is in training, although whether these devices should be used among novices instead of direct laryngoscopy (DL) remains unclear. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the outcomes of VL and DL when used by novices to perform intubation in the operating room. The secondary aims are to correlate outcomes with different types of VLs and with different types of novices, such as medical students, residents, and non-anesthesiology trainees. Databases were searched for studies that compared the outcomes of VL versus DL in endotracheal intubation performed by novices on patients with expected normal airways and no history of difficult intubation or cervical spine instability undergoing general anesthesia in the operating room. The primary outcome was the initial success rate. The secondary outcomes were time to intubate and the number of unintended esophageal intubations. A meta-analysis was performed to determine the difference, if any, in outcomes between VL and DL. Sub-analyses were also performed after the stratification of data by the type of VL used and the type of novice. Ten studies were included with 1,730 intubations. Studies varied by VL type and novice type. The overall results from the meta-analysis demonstrated an increased success rate and decreased time to intubate with VL compared to DL. Four studies showed a reduction in esophageal intubation with VL compared to DL. Sub-analysis by VL type showed that improved outcomes with VL over DL were maintained only with the use of channeled VLs rather than non-channeled VLs. Sub-analysis by novice type showed that improved success rates with VL over DL were maintained only among medical students. Novices may have a higher initial success rate and faster intubation time when using a channeled VL compared to DL. Medical students also show improved success rates when using VL rather than DL, while residents and other types of novices do not. These findings may help guide clinicians in determining the most effective devices to use when teaching airway management while also maintaining the highest possible level of patient safety.
视频喉镜(VL)在气道管理中的应用日益广泛,并且已证实在某些临床场景(如困难气道)中可降低插管失败率。培训新手插管技术需要他们在活体患者身上练习;然而,从安全角度来看,鉴于经验不足的受训者多次尝试或插管失败后并发症风险增加,这并不理想。VL可能有益的一个领域是培训,尽管这些设备是否应在新手当中使用而非直接喉镜(DL)仍不明确。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较新手在手术室使用VL和DL进行插管的结果。次要目的是将结果与不同类型的VL以及不同类型的新手(如医学生、住院医师和非麻醉专业受训者)相关联。检索数据库以查找比较新手在手术室对预期气道正常、无插管困难史或颈椎不稳且接受全身麻醉的患者进行气管插管时VL与DL结果的研究。主要结局是首次成功率。次要结局是插管时间和意外食管插管次数。进行荟萃分析以确定VL和DL在结局方面是否存在差异。还在按所使用的VL类型和新手类型对数据进行分层后进行了亚组分析。纳入了10项研究,共1730例插管。研究因VL类型和新手类型而异。荟萃分析的总体结果表明,与DL相比,VL的成功率更高且插管时间更短。四项研究表明,与DL相比,VL可减少食管插管。按VL类型进行的亚组分析表明,仅在使用带通道VL而非无通道VL时,VL相对于DL的改善结局得以维持。按新手类型进行的亚组分析表明,仅在医学生中,VL相对于DL的成功率提高得以维持。与DL相比,新手使用带通道VL时可能具有更高的首次成功率和更快的插管时间。医学生使用VL而非DL时成功率也有所提高,而住院医师和其他类型的新手则不然。这些发现可能有助于指导临床医生在教授气道管理时确定最有效的设备,同时保持尽可能高的患者安全水平。