Bougie approach improves first-attempt success rate compared to stylet approach in patients with difficult airway needing endotracheal intubation: a meta-analysis.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Minerva anestesiologica Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-05 DOI:10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18133-3
Yang Jiang, Yuan-Yuan Wang, Xiao-Fei Qiu, Ri-Zhi Shao, Zhen-Feng Zhou
{"title":"Bougie approach improves first-attempt success rate compared to stylet approach in patients with difficult airway needing endotracheal intubation: a meta-analysis.","authors":"Yang Jiang, Yuan-Yuan Wang, Xiao-Fei Qiu, Ri-Zhi Shao, Zhen-Feng Zhou","doi":"10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18133-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Bougies and stylets are widely acknowledged as effective tools for managing endotracheal intubation, uncertainties persist regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of bougie versus stylet approaches in endotracheal intubation.</p><p><strong>Evidence acquisition: </strong>A comprehensive electronic search was conducted on the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases from inception to December 9, 2023, using the keywords \"endotracheal intubation,\" \"bougie,\" and \"stylet.\" This meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the performance of bougies and stylets in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation.</p><p><strong>Evidence synthesis: </strong>A total of 12 articles, encompassing 2534 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. The bougie approach did not exhibit superiority in first-attempt success rate (83.6% vs. 81.7%; OR, 1.06, 95% CI, 0.49 to 2.29; P=0.89) and total intubation success rate (99.3% vs. 97.6%; OR, 2.32, 95% CI, 0.44 to 12.34; P=0.32, I<sup>2</sup>>50%, P<0.001). However, in patients with difficult airways, the bougie approach demonstrated a superior first-attempt success rate compared to the stylet approach (93.8% vs. 76.4%; OR, 5.25, 95% CI, 2.74 to 10.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in complications between the bougie and stylet approaches (P>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>For patients with difficult airway characteristics, our recommendation is to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI) using the bougie approach over the stylet approach, as it has been associated with a better first-attempt success rate. Notably, the advantages of using a bougie may be less pronounced for patients without signs of a difficult airway.</p>","PeriodicalId":18522,"journal":{"name":"Minerva anestesiologica","volume":" ","pages":"912-921"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva anestesiologica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.24.18133-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Bougies and stylets are widely acknowledged as effective tools for managing endotracheal intubation, uncertainties persist regarding the comparative efficacy and safety of bougie versus stylet approaches in endotracheal intubation.

Evidence acquisition: A comprehensive electronic search was conducted on the Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Embase databases from inception to December 9, 2023, using the keywords "endotracheal intubation," "bougie," and "stylet." This meta-analysis aims to evaluate and compare the performance of bougies and stylets in patients undergoing endotracheal intubation.

Evidence synthesis: A total of 12 articles, encompassing 2534 participants, were included in this meta-analysis. The bougie approach did not exhibit superiority in first-attempt success rate (83.6% vs. 81.7%; OR, 1.06, 95% CI, 0.49 to 2.29; P=0.89) and total intubation success rate (99.3% vs. 97.6%; OR, 2.32, 95% CI, 0.44 to 12.34; P=0.32, I2>50%, P<0.001). However, in patients with difficult airways, the bougie approach demonstrated a superior first-attempt success rate compared to the stylet approach (93.8% vs. 76.4%; OR, 5.25, 95% CI, 2.74 to 10.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in complications between the bougie and stylet approaches (P>0.05).

Conclusions: For patients with difficult airway characteristics, our recommendation is to perform endotracheal intubation (ETI) using the bougie approach over the stylet approach, as it has been associated with a better first-attempt success rate. Notably, the advantages of using a bougie may be less pronounced for patients without signs of a difficult airway.

在需要气管插管的困难气道患者中,布基法与气管插管器法相比可提高首次尝试成功率:一项荟萃分析。
导言:气管套管和气管插管被公认为是管理气管插管的有效工具,但气管套管和气管插管器在气管插管中的有效性和安全性比较仍存在不确定性:以 "气管插管"、"bougie "和 "stylet "为关键词,在 Cochrane Library、PubMed 和 Embase 数据库中进行了全面的电子检索,检索时间从开始到 2023 年 12 月 9 日。本荟萃分析旨在评估和比较在气管插管患者中使用 "bougie "和 "stylet "的效果:本荟萃分析共纳入了 12 篇文章,涉及 2534 名参与者。在首次尝试成功率(83.6% vs. 81.7%;OR,1.06,95% CI,0.49~2.29;P=0.89)和总插管成功率(99.3% vs. 97.6%;OR,2.32,95% CI,0.44~12.34;P=0.32,I2>50%,P0.05)方面,布吉法没有表现出优势:结论:对于具有困难气道特征的患者,我们的建议是使用套管法进行气管插管 (ETI),而不是使用支架法,因为套管法的首次尝试成功率更高。值得注意的是,对于没有困难气道迹象的患者,使用气管插管器的优势可能不那么明显。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Minerva anestesiologica
Minerva anestesiologica 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
367
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Minerva Anestesiologica is the journal of the Italian National Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation, and Intensive Care. Minerva Anestesiologica publishes scientific papers on Anesthesiology, Intensive care, Analgesia, Perioperative Medicine and related fields. Manuscripts are expected to comply with the instructions to authors which conform to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Editors by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信