Comparing the effectiveness and safety of videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the paediatric emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

IF 3.1 3区医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

Frontiers in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-19 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fmed.2024.1373460

Emma Warinton, Zubair Ahmed

{"title":"Comparing the effectiveness and safety of videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the paediatric emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Emma Warinton, Zubair Ahmed","doi":"10.3389/fmed.2024.1373460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Endotracheal intubation is an uncommon procedure for children in the emergency department but can be technically difficult and cause significant adverse effects. Videolaryngoscopy (VL) offers improved first-pass success rates over direct laryngoscopy (DL) for both adults and children undergoing elective surgery. This systematic review was designed to evaluate current evidence regarding how the effectiveness and safety of VL compares to DL for intubation of children in emergency departments.Methods: Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science) were searched on 11th May 2023 for studies comparing first-pass success of VL and DL for children undergoing intubation in the emergency department. Studies including adult patients or where intubation occurred outside of the emergency department were excluded. Quality assessment of included studies was carried out using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was undertaken for first-pass success and adverse event rate.Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria representing 5,586 intubations. All included studies were observational. Significantly greater first-pass success rate was demonstrated with VL compared to DL (OR 1.64, 95% CI [1.21-2.21], p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in risk of adverse events between VL and DL (OR 0.79, 95% CI [0.52-1.20], p = 0.27). The overall risk of bias was moderate to serious for all included studies.Conclusion: VL can offer improved first-pass success rates over DL for children intubated in the emergency department. However, the quality of current evidence is low and further randomised studies are required to clarify which patient groups may benefit most from use of VL.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=415039, Identifier CRD42023415039.","PeriodicalId":12488,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446787/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1373460","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Endotracheal intubation is an uncommon procedure for children in the emergency department but can be technically difficult and cause significant adverse effects. Videolaryngoscopy (VL) offers improved first-pass success rates over direct laryngoscopy (DL) for both adults and children undergoing elective surgery. This systematic review was designed to evaluate current evidence regarding how the effectiveness and safety of VL compares to DL for intubation of children in emergency departments.

Methods: Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science) were searched on 11^th May 2023 for studies comparing first-pass success of VL and DL for children undergoing intubation in the emergency department. Studies including adult patients or where intubation occurred outside of the emergency department were excluded. Quality assessment of included studies was carried out using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool. Meta-analysis was undertaken for first-pass success and adverse event rate.

Results: Ten studies met the inclusion criteria representing 5,586 intubations. All included studies were observational. Significantly greater first-pass success rate was demonstrated with VL compared to DL (OR 1.64, 95% CI [1.21-2.21], p = 0.001). There was no significant difference in risk of adverse events between VL and DL (OR 0.79, 95% CI [0.52-1.20], p = 0.27). The overall risk of bias was moderate to serious for all included studies.

Conclusion: VL can offer improved first-pass success rates over DL for children intubated in the emergency department. However, the quality of current evidence is low and further randomised studies are required to clarify which patient groups may benefit most from use of VL.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=415039, Identifier CRD42023415039.

查看原文本刊更多论文

比较视频喉镜和直接喉镜在儿科急诊室气管插管中的有效性和安全性：系统综述和荟萃分析。

导言：气管内插管在急诊科的儿童中并不常见，但在技术上却很困难，而且会造成严重的不良影响。对于接受择期手术的成人和儿童来说，视频喉镜（VL）比直接喉镜（DL）的首次成功率更高。本系统性综述旨在评估急诊科为儿童插管时 VL 与 DL 的有效性和安全性比较的现有证据：方法：2023 年 5 月 11 日，在四个数据库（MEDLINE、Embase、CENTRAL 和 Web of Science）中搜索了在急诊科为儿童插管时比较 VL 和 DL 首次插管成功率的研究。包括成人患者或在急诊科外进行插管的研究均被排除在外。采用干预措施非随机研究中的偏倚风险（ROBINS-I）工具对纳入的研究进行质量评估。对首次插管成功率和不良事件发生率进行了 Meta 分析：10项研究符合纳入标准，代表了5586次插管。所有纳入的研究均为观察性研究。与 DL 相比，VL 的首次插管成功率明显更高（OR 1.64，95% CI [1.21-2.21]，p = 0.001）。VL 和 DL 的不良事件风险无明显差异（OR 0.79，95% CI [0.52-1.20]，p = 0.27）。所有纳入研究的总体偏倚风险为中度至严重偏倚：结论：对于急诊科插管的儿童，VL 比 DL 可提高首次插管成功率。然而，目前的证据质量较低，需要进一步的随机研究来明确哪些患者群体可能从使用VL中获益最多。系统综述注册：https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=415039，标识符为CRD42023415039。

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

Frontiers in Medicine Medicine-General Medicine

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

5.10%

发文量

3710

审稿时长

12 weeks

期刊介绍： Frontiers in Medicine publishes rigorously peer-reviewed research linking basic research to clinical practice and patient care, as well as translating scientific advances into new therapies and diagnostic tools. Led by an outstanding Editorial Board of international experts, this multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide. In addition to papers that provide a link between basic research and clinical practice, a particular emphasis is given to studies that are directly relevant to patient care. In this spirit, the journal publishes the latest research results and medical knowledge that facilitate the translation of scientific advances into new therapies or diagnostic tools. The full listing of the Specialty Sections represented by Frontiers in Medicine is as listed below. As well as the established medical disciplines, Frontiers in Medicine is launching new sections that together will facilitate - the use of patient-reported outcomes under real world conditions - the exploitation of big data and the use of novel information and communication tools in the assessment of new medicines - the scientific bases for guidelines and decisions from regulatory authorities - access to medicinal products and medical devices worldwide - addressing the grand health challenges around the world