Effect of Bougie Use on First-Attempt Success in Tracheal Intubations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The use of a bougie, a flexible endotracheal tube introducer, has been proposed to optimize first-attempt success in emergency department intubations. We aimed to evaluate the available evidence on the association of bougie use in the first attempt and success in tracheal intubations. This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated first-attempt success between adults intubated with a bougie versus without a bougie (usually with a stylet) in all settings. Manikin and cadaver studies were excluded. A medical librarian searched Ovid Cochrane Central, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials and comparative observational studies from inception to June 2023. Study selection and data extraction were done in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers. We conducted a meta-analysis with random-effects models, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence at the outcome level. We screened a total of 2,699 studies, and 133 were selected for full-text review. A total of 18 studies, including 12 randomized controlled trials, underwent quantitative analysis. In the meta-analysis of 18 studies (9,151 patients), bougie use was associated with increased first-attempt intubation success (pooled risk ratio [RR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 1.17, low certainty evidence). Bougie use was associated with increased first-attempt success across all analyzed subgroups with similar effect estimates, including in emergency intubations (9 studies; 8,070 patients; RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16, low certainty). The highest point estimate favoring the use of a bougie was in the subgroup of patients with Cormack-Lehane III or IV (5 studies, 585 patients, RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.40 to 1.84, moderate certainty). In this meta-analysis, the bougie as an aid in the first intubation attempt was associated with increased success. Despite the certainty of evidence being low, these data suggest that a bougie should probably be used first and not as a rescue device in emergency intubations.

Prognostic accuracy of qSOFA at triage in patients with suspected infection in a Brazilian emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prognostic accuracy of qSOFA for predicting in-hospital mortality among patients with suspected infection presenting to the ED of a public tertiary hospital in Brazil. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients (age ≥ 18 years) with suspected infection who presented to an academic tertiary ED in Porto Alegre (Southern Brazil) during an 18-month period. The qSOFA was calculated by using information collected at triage and patients were followed throughout hospitalization for the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for the qSOFA and qSOFA65. RESULTS: A total of 7523 ED visits of patients with suspected infection in which an intravenous antibiotic was administered within 24 h were included, which resulted in 908 in-hospital deaths (12.1%). There were 690 (9.2%) patients whose triage qSOFA was ≥2 points. When such cutoff was used, the sensitivity for in-hospital death was 24.6% (95% CI 21.8 to 27.4%) and the specificity was 92.9% (95% CI 92.3% to 93.5%). The sensitivity increased to 67.4% (95% CI 64.2% to 70.3%) when a cutoff of ≥1 was tested, but the specificity decreased to 55.3% (95% CI 54.1% to 56.5%). Using a cutoff of ≥2, the qSOFA65 had a sensitivity of 51.0% (95% CI 47.7% to 54.3%) and a specificity of 75.7% (95% CI 74.6% to 76.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The qSOFA score yielded very low sensitivity in predicting in-hospital mortality. Emergency physicians or ED triage nurses in low-to-middle income countries should not be using qSOFA or qSOFA65 as "rule-out" screening tools in the initial evaluation of patients with suspected infection.