Department of Anesthesiology, Chi Mei Medical Center, Tainan City, Taiwan.
Department of Anesthesiology, E-Da Hospital, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung City, Taiwan.
PLoS One. 2024 Oct 10;19(10):e0311234. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0311234. eCollection 2024.
This meta-analysis aimed to compare videolaryngoscope (VL)-assisted transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe insertion with conventional methods in terms of efficacy and safety.
Several major databases such as Medline and Embase were systematically searched to identified relevant studies from inception to June 2024. The primary outcome was complication rate, defined as the proportion of patients experiencing complications related to TEE probe insertion. Injuries at specific sites (e.g., posterior hypopharyngeal wall) from both groups were also analyzed. The secondary outcomes included the first-attempt success rate and total insertion time of VL and conventional methods.
Seven trials involving 716 participants were identified. The use of VL was found to significantly reduce the complication rate (risk ratio[RR]:0.28, 95% confidence interval[CI]:0.17-0.46, P < 0.00001) and increased the first-attempt success rate [FASR] (RR:1.33, 95%CI: 1.10-1.60, P = 0.003) compared with conventional methods. These findings were confirmed by trial sequential analysis. No significant difference was found in the TEE insertion time among the two techniques (mean difference: -2.94s, 95%CI: -10.28-4.4, P = 0.43). VL significantly reduced the risk of trauma to the hypopharyngeal wall but showed no significant benefits in other areas (e.g., pyriform sinus). The certainty of evidence was moderate for the complication rate, very low for the FAS rate, and low for the TEE insertion time.
The use of VL for TEE probe insertion is associated with a significantly lower complication rate and higher FAS rate than conventional methods. These findings suggest that VL enhances patient safety and improves the efficiency of TEE probe insertion.
本荟萃分析旨在比较视频喉镜(VL)辅助经食管超声心动图(TEE)探头插入与传统方法在疗效和安全性方面的差异。
系统检索了 Medline 和 Embase 等多个主要数据库,以确定从开始到 2024 年 6 月的相关研究。主要结局指标是并发症发生率,定义为发生与 TEE 探头插入相关并发症的患者比例。还分析了两组中特定部位(如后咽壁)的损伤情况。次要结局指标包括 VL 和传统方法的首次尝试成功率和总插入时间。
共纳入了 7 项涉及 716 名参与者的试验。与传统方法相比,VL 的使用显著降低了并发症发生率(风险比[RR]:0.28,95%置信区间[CI]:0.17-0.46,P < 0.00001),并提高了首次尝试成功率[FASR](RR:1.33,95%CI:1.10-1.60,P = 0.003)。这些发现通过试验序贯分析得到了证实。两种技术的 TEE 插入时间无显著差异(平均差值:-2.94s,95%CI:-10.28-4.4,P = 0.43)。VL 显著降低了咽壁损伤的风险,但在其他部位(如梨状窦)没有明显的获益。并发症发生率的证据确定性为中等,FAS 率的证据确定性为极低,TEE 插入时间的证据确定性为低。
与传统方法相比,VL 用于 TEE 探头插入可显著降低并发症发生率和提高 FAS 率。这些发现表明 VL 增强了患者安全性,并提高了 TEE 探头插入的效率。