Department of Anesthesiology, Hangzhou Women's Hospital (Hangzhou Maternity and Child Health Care Hospital, Hangzhou First People's Hospital Qianjiang New City Campus, Zhejiang Chinese Medical University), Hangzhou, China.
Department of Endocrinology, Xixi Hospital of Hangzhou, Hangzhou, China.
Minerva Anestesiol. 2024 Oct;90(10):912-921. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18133-3. Epub 2024 Aug 5.
Bougies and stylets are widely acknowledged as effective tools for managing endotracheal intubation, uncertainties persist regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of bougie versus stylet approaches in endotracheal intubation.
A comprehensive electronic search was conducted on the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases from inception to December 9, 2023, using the keywords "endotracheal intubation," "bougie," and "stylet." This meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the performance of bougies and stylets in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation.
A total of 12 articles, encompassing 2534 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. The bougie approach did not exhibit superiority in first-attempt success rate (83.6% vs. 81.7%; OR, 1.06, 95% CI, 0.49 to 2.29; P=0.89) and total intubation success rate (99.3% vs. 97.6%; OR, 2.32, 95% CI, 0.44 to 12.34; P=0.32, I>50%, P<0.001). However, in patients with difficult airways, the bougie approach demonstrated a superior first-attempt success rate compared to the stylet approach (93.8% vs. 76.4%; OR, 5.25, 95% CI, 2.74 to 10.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in complications between the bougie and stylet approaches (P>0.05).
For patients with difficult airway characteristics, our recommendation is to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI) using the bougie approach over the stylet approach, as it has been associated with a better first-attempt success rate. Notably, the advantages of using a bougie may be less pronounced for patients without signs of a difficult airway.
球囊和管芯被广泛认为是管理气管插管的有效工具,但在气管插管中球囊与管芯方法的相对疗效和安全性方面仍存在不确定性。
从 2023 年 12 月 9 日起,我们在 Cochrane 图书馆、PubMed 和 Embase 数据库中进行了全面的电子搜索,使用了“气管插管”、“球囊”和“管芯”等关键词。这项荟萃分析旨在评估和比较球囊和管芯在接受气管插管的患者中的表现。
这项荟萃分析共纳入了 12 篇文章,共 2534 名参与者。球囊方法在首次尝试成功率(83.6%比 81.7%;OR,1.06,95%CI,0.49 至 2.29;P=0.89)和总插管成功率(99.3%比 97.6%;OR,2.32,95%CI,0.44 至 12.34;P=0.32,I>50%,P<0.001)方面没有优势。然而,在有困难气道的患者中,球囊方法的首次尝试成功率优于管芯方法(93.8%比 76.4%;OR,5.25,95%CI,2.74 至 10.05;P<0.001)。球囊和管芯方法之间的并发症没有显著差异(P>0.05)。
对于有困难气道特征的患者,我们建议使用球囊方法进行气管插管(ETI),而不是管芯方法,因为它与更高的首次尝试成功率相关。值得注意的是,对于没有困难气道迹象的患者,使用球囊的优势可能不太明显。