Suppr超能文献

经验有限的临床医生在高级生命支持期间使用直接喉镜与Glidescope视频喉镜进行气管插管的系统评价和荟萃分析

Tracheal Intubation during Advanced Life Support Using Direct Laryngoscopy versus Glidescope Videolaryngoscopy by Clinicians with Limited Intubation Experience: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

van Schuppen Hans, Wojciechowicz Kamil, Hollmann Markus W, Preckel Benedikt

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Clin Med. 2022 Oct 26;11(21):6291. doi: 10.3390/jcm11216291.

Abstract

The use of the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope might improve tracheal intubation performance in clinicians with limited intubation experience, especially during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare direct laryngoscopy to Glidescope® videolaryngoscopy by these clinicians. PubMed/Medline and Embase were searched from their inception to 7 July 2020 for randomized controlled trials, including simulation studies. Studies on adult patients or adult-sized manikins were included when direct laryngoscopy was compared to Glidescope® videolaryngoscopy by clinicians with limited experience in tracheal intubation (<10 intubations per year). The primary outcome was the intubation first-pass success rate. Secondary outcomes were time to successful intubation and chest compression interruption duration during intubation. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We included 4 clinical trials with 525 patients and 20 manikin trials with 2547 intubations. Meta-analyses favored Glidescope® videolaryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy regarding first-pass success (clinical trials: risk ratio [RR] = 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16−2.23; manikin trials: RR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.09−1.25). Clinical trials showed a shorter time to achieve successful intubation when using the Glidescope® (mean difference = 17.04 s; 95% CI: 8.51−25.57 s). Chest compression interruption duration was decreased when using the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. When clinicians with limited intubation experience have to perform tracheal intubation during advanced life support, the use of the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope improves intubation and CPR performance compared to direct laryngoscopy.

摘要

对于插管经验有限的临床医生,尤其是在心肺复苏(CPR)期间,使用Glidescope®视频喉镜可能会提高气管插管操作的成功率。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较这些临床医生使用直接喉镜与Glidescope®视频喉镜的效果。检索了PubMed/Medline和Embase数据库,从建库至2020年7月7日,查找随机对照试验,包括模拟研究。当比较直接喉镜与Glidescope®视频喉镜在气管插管经验有限(每年插管<10次)的临床医生用于成年患者或成人尺寸人体模型的情况时,纳入相关研究。主要结局是插管首次通过成功率。次要结局是成功插管的时间和插管期间胸外按压中断持续时间。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)方法评估证据的确定性。我们纳入了4项包含525例患者的临床试验和20项包含2547次插管操作的人体模型试验。荟萃分析结果显示,在首次通过成功率方面,Glidescope®视频喉镜优于直接喉镜(临床试验:风险比[RR]=1.61;95%置信区间[CI]:1.16−2.23;人体模型试验:RR=1.17;95%CI:1.09−1.25)。临床试验表明,使用Glidescope®视频喉镜时成功插管的时间更短(平均差值=17.04秒;95%CI:8.51−25.57秒)。使用Glidescope®视频喉镜时胸外按压中断持续时间缩短。证据的确定性范围从极低到中等。当插管经验有限的临床医生在高级生命支持期间必须进行气管插管时,与直接喉镜相比,使用Glidescope®视频喉镜可提高插管和心肺复苏操作的效果。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/03e4/9655434/16f81fc9de16/jcm-11-06291-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验