Videolaryngoscopes versus direct laryngoscopes in children: Ranking systematic review with network meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Videolaryngoscopes improve tracheal intubation in adult patients, but we currently do not know whether they are similarly beneficial for children. We designed this ranking systematic review to compare individual video and direct laryngoscopes for efficacy and safety of orotracheal intubation in children. METHODS: We searched PubMed and five other databases on January 27, 2021. We included randomized clinical trials with patients aged ≤18 years, comparing different laryngoscopes for the outcomes: failed first intubation attempt; failed intubation within two attempts; failed intubation; glottic view; time for intubation; complications. In addition, we assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE recommendations. RESULTS: We included 46 studies in the meta-analyses. Videolaryngoscopy reduced the risk of failed first intubation attempt (RR = 0.43; 95% CI: 0.31-0.61; p = .001) and failed intubation within two attempts (RR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.33-0.33; p < .001) in children aged <1 year. Videolaryngoscopy also reduced the risk of major complications in both children aged <1 year (RR = 0.33; 95% CI: 0.12-0.96; p = .046) and children aged 0-18 years (RR = 0.40; 95% CI: 0.25-0.65; p = .002). We did not find significant difference between videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for time to intubation in children aged <1 year (MD = -0.95 s; 95% CI: -5.45 to 3.57 s; p = .681), and children aged 0-18 years (MD = 1.65 s; 95% CI: -1.00 to 4.30 s; p = .222). Different videolaryngoscopes were associated with different performance metrics within this meta-analysis. The overall quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low. CONCLUSION: Videolaryngoscopes reduce the risk of failed first intubation attempts and major complications in children compared to direct laryngoscopes. However, not all videolaryngoscopes have the same performance metrics, and more data is needed to clarify which device may be better in different clinical scenarios. Additionally, care must be taken while interpreting our results and rankings due to the available evidence's low or very low quality.

Is Mallampati classification a good screening test? A prospective cohort evaluating the predictive values of Mallampati test at different thresholds.

BACKGROUND: There is currently some discussion over the actual usefulness of performing preoperative upper airway assessment to predict difficult airways. In this field, modified Mallampati test (MMT) is a widespread tool used for prediction of difficult airways showing only a feeble predictive performance as a diagnostic test. We therefore aimed at evaluating if MMT test would perform better when used as a screening test rather than diagnostic. METHODS: An accuracy prospective study was conducted with 570 patients undergoing general anesthesia for surgical procedures. We collected preoperatively data on sex, age, weight, height, body mass index (BMI), ASA physical status, and MMT. The main outcome was difficult laryngoscopy defined as Cormack and Lahane classes 3 or 4. Bivariate analyses were performed to build three different predictive models with their ROC curves. RESULTS: Difficult laryngoscopy was reported in 36 patients (6.32%). Sex, ASA physical status, and MMT were associated with difficult laryngoscopy, while body mass index (BMI) was not. The MMT cut-off with the highest odds ratio was the class II, which also presented significantly higher sensitivity (94.44%). The balanced accuracy was 67.11% (95% CI: 62.78...71.44%) for the cut-off of class II and 71.68% (95% CI: 63.83...79.54) for the class III. CONCLUSION: MMT seems to be more clinically useful when the class II is employed as the threshold for possible difficult laryngoscopies. At this cut-off, MMT shows the considerable highest sensitivity plus the highest odds ratio, prioritizing thus the anticipation of difficult laryngoscopies.

Characterization of the genetic profile of CYP2C19 in two South African populations.

AIMS: This study was aimed at elucidating the common sequence variation present in the CYP2C19 gene within the South African Xhosa population and comparing it with the Cape Mixed Ancestry (CMA) population for possible future pharmacogenetic applications. MATERIALS & METHODS: Common sequence variation was identified through the resequencing of 15 Xhosa individuals. The detected variants were prioritized for genotyping in an additional 85 Xhosa and 75 CMA individuals, while 5 -upstream variants were analyzed using dual luciferase reporter assays. RESULTS: Resequencing of the Xhosa population revealed 30 variants, including the novel CYP2C19*27 and CYP2C19*28 alleles. CYP2C19*27, characterized by -1041G>A, caused a twofold decrease in luciferase activity, while CYP2C19*28 is characterized by the nonsynonymous V374I variant. In addition, the previously characterized variants, CYP2C19*2, CYP2C19*9 and CYP2C19*17, were present in both populations, while CYP2C19*3 was only observed in the CMA population. CONCLUSION: Our data demonstrate that both the Xhosa and CMA populations exhibit unique genetic profiles that could influence the outcome of drug therapy in these populations.