Second-Generation Supraglottic Airway Devices Versus Endotracheal Intubation in Adults Undergoing Abdominopelvic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Clístenes Crístian de Carvalho, Ioannis Kapsokalyvas, Kariem El-Boghdadly
{"title":"Second-Generation Supraglottic Airway Devices Versus Endotracheal Intubation in Adults Undergoing Abdominopelvic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Clístenes Crístian de Carvalho, Ioannis Kapsokalyvas, Kariem El-Boghdadly","doi":"10.1213/ANE.0000000000006951","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Second-generation supraglottic airway (SGA) devices are widely used, but thought to have inferior safety performance to endotracheal tubes (ETTs), but might be equally efficacious while improving patient-centered outcomes. We compared second-generation SGAs with ETTs for perioperative safety, efficacy, and quality of recovery in adults undergoing abdominopelvic surgery under general anesthesia. Our primary objective was to assess safety in the form of major airway complications. Secondary objectives were other safety, efficacy, and quality of recovery outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched 4 databases for randomized controlled trials of adult patients having abdominopelvic surgery comparing second-generation SGAs and ETTs. After 2-person screening and data extraction, pairwise meta-analysis was conducted and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to assess the certainty of evidence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 51 studies, randomizing 5110 patients, were included. Second-generation SGAs significantly reduced the risk of major perioperative airway complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.71; P = .007; low certainty), with no clear clinically relevant difference in regurgitation or pulmonary aspiration (low certainty). SGAs significantly increased the risk of inadequate ventilation (RR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.43-7.89; P = .011; very low certainty); however, postoperative sore throat (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.70; P < .001; moderate certainty), hoarseness (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.231-0.48; P < .001; low certainty), coughing at the emergence of anesthesia (RR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.08-0.36; P < .001; low certainty), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98; P = .042; very low certainty) were all less frequent with SGAs. No other clinically relevant differences were observed for other remaining outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Second-generation SGAs reduce the risk of major airway complications compared with ETTs in adults undergoing abdominopelvic procedures under general anesthesia, with no reported clinically relevant differences in the risk of regurgitation or pulmonary aspiration. Additionally, they improve the quality of postoperative recovery with lower risk of sore throat, hoarseness, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. These data provide an opportunity for clinicians to reassess the implications of conservative airway management, and potentially expand the role of second-generation SGAs in routine clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":7784,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia and analgesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia and analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000006951","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Second-generation supraglottic airway (SGA) devices are widely used, but thought to have inferior safety performance to endotracheal tubes (ETTs), but might be equally efficacious while improving patient-centered outcomes. We compared second-generation SGAs with ETTs for perioperative safety, efficacy, and quality of recovery in adults undergoing abdominopelvic surgery under general anesthesia. Our primary objective was to assess safety in the form of major airway complications. Secondary objectives were other safety, efficacy, and quality of recovery outcomes.

Methods: We searched 4 databases for randomized controlled trials of adult patients having abdominopelvic surgery comparing second-generation SGAs and ETTs. After 2-person screening and data extraction, pairwise meta-analysis was conducted and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to assess the certainty of evidence.

Results: A total of 51 studies, randomizing 5110 patients, were included. Second-generation SGAs significantly reduced the risk of major perioperative airway complications (risk ratio [RR], 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.71; P = .007; low certainty), with no clear clinically relevant difference in regurgitation or pulmonary aspiration (low certainty). SGAs significantly increased the risk of inadequate ventilation (RR, 3.36; 95% CI, 1.43-7.89; P = .011; very low certainty); however, postoperative sore throat (RR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.38-0.70; P < .001; moderate certainty), hoarseness (RR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.231-0.48; P < .001; low certainty), coughing at the emergence of anesthesia (RR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.08-0.36; P < .001; low certainty), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (RR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98; P = .042; very low certainty) were all less frequent with SGAs. No other clinically relevant differences were observed for other remaining outcomes.

Conclusions: Second-generation SGAs reduce the risk of major airway complications compared with ETTs in adults undergoing abdominopelvic procedures under general anesthesia, with no reported clinically relevant differences in the risk of regurgitation or pulmonary aspiration. Additionally, they improve the quality of postoperative recovery with lower risk of sore throat, hoarseness, and postoperative nausea and vomiting. These data provide an opportunity for clinicians to reassess the implications of conservative airway management, and potentially expand the role of second-generation SGAs in routine clinical practice.

第二代声门上气道装置与气管内插管在成人腹盆腔手术中的应用:系统回顾与元分析》。
背景:第二代声门上气道(SGA)装置已被广泛使用,但被认为其安全性能不如气管插管(ETT),但在改善以患者为中心的预后方面可能具有同等功效。我们比较了第二代 SGA 与 ETT 在全身麻醉下接受腹盆腔手术的成人中的围术期安全性、有效性和恢复质量。我们的首要目标是评估主要气道并发症的安全性。次要目标是其他安全性、有效性和恢复质量结果:我们在 4 个数据库中搜索了针对腹盆腔手术成年患者的随机对照试验,对第二代 SGA 和 ETT 进行了比较。经过两人筛选和数据提取后,进行了配对荟萃分析,并采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)评估证据的确定性:结果:共纳入了 51 项研究,随机抽取了 5110 名患者。第二代 SGA 可显著降低围术期气道主要并发症的风险(风险比 [RR],0.41;95% 置信区间 [CI],0.23-0.71;P = .007;低确定性),反流或肺吸入方面没有明显的临床相关性差异(低确定性)。SGAs 明显增加了通气不足的风险(RR,3.36;95% CI,1.43-7.89;P = .011;极低确定性);然而,术后咽喉痛(RR,0.52;95% CI,0.38-0.70;P < .001;中等确定性)、声音嘶哑(RR,0.32;95% CI,0.231-0.48;P < .001;低度确定性)、麻醉开始时的咳嗽(RR,0.17;95% CI,0.08-0.36;P < .001;低度确定性)以及术后恶心和呕吐(RR,0.64;95% CI,0.42-0.98;P = .042;极低度确定性)均较少发生在使用 SGA 的情况下。其余结果未观察到其他临床相关差异:结论:在全身麻醉下接受腹盆腔手术的成人中,与 ETT 相比,第二代 SGA 可降低主要气道并发症的风险,在反流或肺吸入风险方面没有临床相关性差异的报道。此外,它们还能改善术后恢复质量,降低咽喉疼痛、声音嘶哑以及术后恶心和呕吐的风险。这些数据为临床医生重新评估保守气道管理的意义提供了机会,并有可能扩大第二代 SGA 在常规临床实践中的作用。
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
Anesthesia and analgesia
Anesthesia and analgesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
9.90
自引率
7.00%
发文量
817
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Anesthesia & Analgesia exists for the benefit of patients under the care of health care professionals engaged in the disciplines broadly related to anesthesiology, perioperative medicine, critical care medicine, and pain medicine. The Journal furthers the care of these patients by reporting the fundamental advances in the science of these clinical disciplines and by documenting the clinical, laboratory, and administrative advances that guide therapy. Anesthesia & Analgesia seeks a balance between definitive clinical and management investigations and outstanding basic scientific reports. The Journal welcomes original manuscripts containing rigorous design and analysis, even if unusual in their approach.
×
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