Decision-Making Tool for Planning Camera-Assisted and Awake Intubation in Head and Neck Surgery.

IF 6 1区 医学 Q1 OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
Zohal Popal, Hans-Heinrich Sieg, Lynn Müller-Wiegand, Philipp Breitfeld, Andre Dankert, Phillip B Sasu, Viktor A Wünsch, Linda Krause, Christian Zöllner, Martin Petzoldt
{"title":"Decision-Making Tool for Planning Camera-Assisted and Awake Intubation in Head and Neck Surgery.","authors":"Zohal Popal, Hans-Heinrich Sieg, Lynn Müller-Wiegand, Philipp Breitfeld, Andre Dankert, Phillip B Sasu, Viktor A Wünsch, Linda Krause, Christian Zöllner, Martin Petzoldt","doi":"10.1001/jamaoto.2025.0538","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Indication criteria for camera-assisted and awake tracheal intubation are vague. It is unknown if diagnostic and clinical data from multiple sources, such as transnasal videoendoscopy or symptoms for pharyngolaryngeal lesions, might improve preanesthesia airway management planning and decision-making in patients undergoing head and neck surgery.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop and validate a new decision-making tool (Evidence-Based Algorithm for the Expected Difficult Intubation [Expect-It]) and show noninferiority to the clinical standard (nonalgorithm-based decision-making).</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This single-center study prospectively developed and validated a decision-making tool with a 2-stage design that included anesthetic cases from patients undergoing head and neck surgery between May 1, 2021, and January 29, 2022. Data were analyzed between August 2021 (first stage) and December 2023.</p><p><strong>Exposures: </strong>Airway-related risk factors from 4 domains (previous intubation difficulties, physical examination, physician's rating of difficult airway indicators, and pharyngolaryngeal lesions/transnasal videoendoscopy findings) were preoperatively assessed. During airway management planning, physicians proposed a first-line tracheal intubation technique (camera-assisted or direct laryngoscopy) and strategy (awake or asleep tracheal intubation). In the development cohort, these proposals were nonalgorithm-based (clinical standard); in the validation cohort, they relied on the Expect-It decision-making tool.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>Regularized regression was used to select potentially predictive airway-related risk factors (covariables). The final decision-making tool is a combined score originating from 2 multivariable logistic regression models that predict 2 different primary outcomes: the most appropriate (1) tracheal intubation technique (camera-assisted or direct laryngoscopy) and (2) strategy (awake or asleep), as determined by the anesthesiologists after tracheal intubation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1201 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.3 [19.0] years; 695 [58%] male), 1282 anesthetic cases were included in the analysis: 602 in the development and 680 in the validation cohort. The area under the curve of the decision-making tool was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.90) to predict appropriate camera-assisted and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99) to predict appropriate awake tracheal intubation in the development cohort. The sensitivity of the Expect-It tool to predict both appropriate camera-assisted and awake tracheal intubation was superior compared to the clinical standard (camera-assisted: 88% [95% CI, 81%-93%] vs 35% [95% CI, 27%-44%], respectively; awake tracheal intubation: 97% [95% CI, 81%-100%] vs 29% [95% CI, 15%-50%], respectively), and specificity was noninferior to the clinical standard (camera-assisted: 97% [95% CI, 96%-98%] vs 96% [95% CI, 93%-97%], respectively; awake tracheal intubation: 100% [95% CI, 99%-100%] vs 98% [95% CI, 97%-99%], respectively). After tool implementation, the first-attempt success rate increased from the development to validation cohort (437 [73%] vs 557 [82%], respectively; odds ratio, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.32-2.22]), while failed direct laryngoscopy decreased from the development to validation cohort (45 [8%] vs 10 [2%], respectively; odds ratio, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09-0.37]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>In this study, the Expect-It tool for airway management planning was prospectively developed and validated. The tool was found to support airway management planning accurately and may serve as a precursor for intelligent algorithms.</p>","PeriodicalId":14632,"journal":{"name":"JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12046521/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JAMA otolaryngology-- head & neck surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2025.0538","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Indication criteria for camera-assisted and awake tracheal intubation are vague. It is unknown if diagnostic and clinical data from multiple sources, such as transnasal videoendoscopy or symptoms for pharyngolaryngeal lesions, might improve preanesthesia airway management planning and decision-making in patients undergoing head and neck surgery.

Objective: To develop and validate a new decision-making tool (Evidence-Based Algorithm for the Expected Difficult Intubation [Expect-It]) and show noninferiority to the clinical standard (nonalgorithm-based decision-making).

Design, setting, and participants: This single-center study prospectively developed and validated a decision-making tool with a 2-stage design that included anesthetic cases from patients undergoing head and neck surgery between May 1, 2021, and January 29, 2022. Data were analyzed between August 2021 (first stage) and December 2023.

Exposures: Airway-related risk factors from 4 domains (previous intubation difficulties, physical examination, physician's rating of difficult airway indicators, and pharyngolaryngeal lesions/transnasal videoendoscopy findings) were preoperatively assessed. During airway management planning, physicians proposed a first-line tracheal intubation technique (camera-assisted or direct laryngoscopy) and strategy (awake or asleep tracheal intubation). In the development cohort, these proposals were nonalgorithm-based (clinical standard); in the validation cohort, they relied on the Expect-It decision-making tool.

Main outcomes and measures: Regularized regression was used to select potentially predictive airway-related risk factors (covariables). The final decision-making tool is a combined score originating from 2 multivariable logistic regression models that predict 2 different primary outcomes: the most appropriate (1) tracheal intubation technique (camera-assisted or direct laryngoscopy) and (2) strategy (awake or asleep), as determined by the anesthesiologists after tracheal intubation.

Results: Of 1201 patients (mean [SD] age, 50.3 [19.0] years; 695 [58%] male), 1282 anesthetic cases were included in the analysis: 602 in the development and 680 in the validation cohort. The area under the curve of the decision-making tool was 0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.90) to predict appropriate camera-assisted and 0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99) to predict appropriate awake tracheal intubation in the development cohort. The sensitivity of the Expect-It tool to predict both appropriate camera-assisted and awake tracheal intubation was superior compared to the clinical standard (camera-assisted: 88% [95% CI, 81%-93%] vs 35% [95% CI, 27%-44%], respectively; awake tracheal intubation: 97% [95% CI, 81%-100%] vs 29% [95% CI, 15%-50%], respectively), and specificity was noninferior to the clinical standard (camera-assisted: 97% [95% CI, 96%-98%] vs 96% [95% CI, 93%-97%], respectively; awake tracheal intubation: 100% [95% CI, 99%-100%] vs 98% [95% CI, 97%-99%], respectively). After tool implementation, the first-attempt success rate increased from the development to validation cohort (437 [73%] vs 557 [82%], respectively; odds ratio, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.32-2.22]), while failed direct laryngoscopy decreased from the development to validation cohort (45 [8%] vs 10 [2%], respectively; odds ratio, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09-0.37]).

Conclusions and relevance: In this study, the Expect-It tool for airway management planning was prospectively developed and validated. The tool was found to support airway management planning accurately and may serve as a precursor for intelligent algorithms.

头颈部手术中相机辅助和清醒插管计划的决策工具。
重要性:相机辅助气管插管和清醒气管插管的指征标准是模糊的。目前尚不清楚来自多种来源的诊断和临床数据,如经鼻内镜或咽部病变症状,是否可能改善头颈部手术患者麻醉前气道管理计划和决策。目的:开发并验证一种新的决策工具(基于证据的预期困难插管算法[Expect-It]),并显示其与临床标准(非基于算法的决策)的非劣效性。设计、环境和参与者:这项单中心研究前瞻性地开发并验证了一种决策工具,该工具采用两阶段设计,包括2021年5月1日至2022年1月29日期间接受头颈部手术的麻醉病例。数据分析时间为2021年8月(第一阶段)至2023年12月。暴露:术前评估4个领域的气道相关危险因素(既往插管困难、体格检查、医生对气道困难指标的评分、咽部病变/经鼻内镜检查结果)。在气道管理计划中,医生提出了一线气管插管技术(相机辅助或直接喉镜检查)和策略(清醒或睡眠气管插管)。在发展队列中,这些建议是非基于算法的(临床标准);在验证队列中,他们依靠Expect-It决策工具。主要结果和措施:使用正则化回归选择潜在的预测气道相关危险因素(协变量)。最终的决策工具是由2个多变量逻辑回归模型得出的综合评分,该模型预测了2种不同的主要结果:最合适的(1)气管插管技术(相机辅助或直接喉镜检查)和(2)策略(清醒或睡眠),由麻醉医师在气管插管后确定。结果:1201例患者(平均[SD]年龄50.3[19.0]岁;695例(58%)男性),1282例麻醉病例纳入分析,其中602例为发展组,680例为验证组。决策工具曲线下面积为0.86 (95% CI, 0.81-0.90)预测适当的相机辅助,0.97 (95% CI, 0.96-0.99)预测适当的清醒气管插管。与临床标准相比,Expect-It工具预测适当的相机辅助气管插管和清醒气管插管的敏感性均优于临床标准(相机辅助:88% [95% CI, 81%-93%] vs 35% [95% CI, 27%-44%];清醒气管插管:分别为97% [95% CI, 81%-100%]和29% [95% CI, 15%-50%]),特异性不低于临床标准(相机辅助:97% [95% CI, 96%-98%]和96% [95% CI, 93%-97%];清醒气管插管:分别为100% [95% CI, 99%-100%]和98% [95% CI, 97%-99%])。在工具实施后,从开发到验证队列的首次尝试成功率分别增加了437[73%]和557 [82%];优势比为1.72 [95% CI, 1.32-2.22]),而从开发到验证队列,直接喉镜检查失败的比例分别为45[8%]对10 [2%];优势比,0.18 [95% CI, 0.09-0.37])。结论和相关性:本研究前瞻性地开发并验证了用于气道管理计划的Expect-It工具。该工具被发现可以准确地支持气道管理规划,并可能作为智能算法的先驱。
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
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
5.10%
发文量
230
期刊介绍: JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery is a globally recognized and peer-reviewed medical journal dedicated to providing up-to-date information on diseases affecting the head and neck. It originated in 1925 as Archives of Otolaryngology and currently serves as the official publication for the American Head and Neck Society. As part of the prestigious JAMA Network, a collection of reputable general medical and specialty publications, it ensures the highest standards of research and expertise. Physicians and scientists worldwide rely on JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery for invaluable insights in this specialized field.
×
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