Videolaryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy use by experienced anaesthetists in patients with known difficult airways: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Experienced anaesthetists can be confronted with difficult or failed tracheal intubations. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to ascertain if the literature indicated if videolaryngoscopy conferred an advantage when used by experienced anaesthetists managing patients with a known difficult airway. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials up to 1 January 2017. Outcome parameters extracted from studies were: first-attempt success of tracheal intubation; time to successful intubation; number of intubation attempts; Cormack and Lehane grade; use of airway adjuncts (e.g. stylet, gum elastic bougie); and complications (e.g. mucosal and dental trauma). Nine studies, including 1329 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. First-attempt success was greater for all videolaryngoscopes (OR 0.34 (95%CI 0.18-0.66); p = 0.001). Use of videolaryngoscopy was associated with a significantly better view of the glottis (Cormack and Lehane grades 1 and 2 vs. 3-4, OR 0.04 (95%CI 0.01-0.15); p < 0.00001). Mucosal trauma occurred less with the use of videolaryngoscopy (OR 0.16 (95%CI 0.04-0.75); p = 0.02). Videolaryngoscopy has added value for the experienced anaesthetist, improving first-time success, the view of the glottis and reducing mucosal trauma.

General or Local Anesthesia for TAVI? A Systematic Review of the Literature and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is becoming a valuable alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement in patients with severe aortic stenosis that are at high surgical risk or deemed inoperable. The optimal anesthesia technique for TAVI is still undecided. We performed a systematic review and metaanalysis to compare the safety of locoregional anesthesia (LRA) with or without conscious sedation and general anesthesia (GA) for the TAVI-procedure. METHODS: We searched PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from January 1st 2002 to February 15th 2015. The primary outcome parameters searched were 30-days mortality, hospital length of stay, procedure time, use of adrenergic support, stroke rate, incidence of myocardial infarction, incidence of acute kidney injury, rate of procedural succes. RESULTS: Ten studies, including 5919 patients, fulfilled the inclusion criteria. None of these studies was randomized resulting in a considerable risk of bias. The choice for a specific anesthesia technique did neither affect the average 30-day mortality rate [RR 0.91 (95% CI: 0.53 to 1.56), p=0.72] nor a wide variety of safety endpoints. LRA for TAVI was associated with a significantly shorter procedure time when compared to GA, and a reduction in hospital length of stay. However, LRA significantly increased the risk for implantation of a permanent pacemaker (RR 1.23, p=0.02) and for paravalvular leakage (RR 1.31, p=0.006.). CONCLUSION: Neither mortality nor the incidence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events after TAVI is affected by the choice for either LRA or GA.