Hemodynamic response related to the Airway Scope versus the Macintosh laryngoscope: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: It is important to reduce the hemodynamic response during tracheal intubation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the Airway Scope and Macintosh laryngoscope to determine whether they reduce the hemodynamic responses of heart rate (HR) and mean blood pressure (MBP) after tracheal intubation under general anesthesia. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of electronic databases for clinical trials comparing hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. The primary aim of our meta-analyst is to determine if the Airway Scope reduces hemodynamic responses (HR and mean MBP) 60 seconds after tracheal intubation compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope. We expressed pooled differences in hemodynamic responses between the 2 devices as weighted mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We conducted trial sequential analysis. Secondarily, we investigated the ability of the Airway Scope and Macintosh laryngoscope to reduce hemodynamic responses at 120 seconds, 180 seconds, and 300 seconds after tracheal intubation. RESULTS: We identified clinical trials comparing hemodynamic response via a comprehensive literature search. Of 185 articles found in the search, we selected 8. In comparison to the Macintosh laryngoscope, the Airway Scope significantly reduced HR and MBP at 60 seconds after tracheal intubation (HR; weighted mean difference = -7.29; 95% confidence interval, -10.9 to -3.62; P < .0001; I2 = 57%, MBP; weighted mean difference = -11.5; 95% confidence interval, -20.4 to -2.65; P = .01; I2 = 91%). At the secondary outcome, the Airway Scope significantly reduced the fluctuation of HR after 120 seconds and 180 seconds of tracheal intubation. However, the Airway Scope did not significantly reduce MBP 120 seconds, 180 seconds, and 300 seconds after tracheal intubation. Trial sequential analysis suggested that the total sample size reached the required information size for heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding suggested that the Airway Scope attenuated hemodynamic responses at 60 seconds after tracheal intubation in comparison with that of the Macintosh laryngoscope. However, the MBP sample size is small and further research is needed.

Comparison of Indirect and Direct Laryngoscopes in Pediatric Patients with a Difficult Airway: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This meta-analysis was performed to determine whether an indirect laryngoscope is more advantageous than a direct laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in the setting of a difficult pediatric airway. Data on the intubation failure and intubation time during tracheal intubation were extracted from prospective and retrospective studies identified through a comprehensive literature search. Data from 10 individual articles (11 trials) were combined, and a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model was used to calculate either the pooled relative risk (RR) or the weighted mean difference (WMD) and the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). Meta-analysis of the 10 articles indicated that the intubation failure of tracheal intubation with an indirect laryngoscope was not significantly different from that of a direct laryngoscope in patients with a difficult airway (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.51-1.46; p = 0.59; Cochrane's Q = 50.5; I2 = 82%). Intubation time with an indirect laryngoscope was also similar to that with a direct laryngoscope (WMD 4.06 s; 95% CI -1.18-9.30; p = 0.13; Cochrane's Q 39.8; I2 = 85%). In conclusion, indirect laryngoscopes had the same intubation failure and intubation time as direct laryngoscopes in pediatric patients with a difficult airway. Currently, the benefits of indirect laryngoscopes have not been observed in the setting of a difficult pediatric airway.

Nasal protection strategy reduces the incidence of nasal pressure injuries during nasotracheal intubation: Meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Nasal pressure injury is a serious problem during nasotracheal intubation. We performed this systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether use of a nasal protection strategy (a protective dressing or a modified fixation method for the tracheal tube) reduces the incidence of nasal pressure injury during nasotracheal intubation. METHODS: Literature searches were performed using three electronic databases. Data from each of the eligible trials were combined, and calculations were made using DerSimonian and Laird random effects models. The pooled effect estimates for nasal pressure injury were evaluated using the relative risk and 95% confidence interval, the Cochrane Q statistic, and the I2 statistic. We also performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to assess sensitivity to prevent type I error. We separated patients into subgroups to analyze the incidence of nasal pressure injury according to whether a protective dressing or a modified fixation method for the tracheal tube was used. RESULTS: The literature search yielded five eligible trials. Meta-analysis of these trials showed that a nasal protection strategy significantly reduced the incidence of nasal pressure injury during nasotracheal intubation (relative risk (RR) 0.34; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21-0.56; P < .0001; Cochrane's Q = 5.86, I2 = 32%). The TSA boundary for futility could not be calculated because of an insufficient sample size. In subgroup analysis, both methods significantly reduced the incidence of nasal pressure injury during nasotracheal intubation. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that a nasal protection strategy significantly reduces the incidence of nasal pressure injury during nasotracheal intubation. During nasotracheal intubation, the use of a protective dressing or modified fixation method for the tracheal tube can prevent to the incidence of nasal pressure injuries. However, the number of samples in our meta-analysis was too small for TSA and further studies are required. TRIALS REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews; registration number 252091).