Pedro Vitale Mendes, Ian Ward Abdalla Maia, Rafael von Hellmann, Danielle Gerberi, Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen, Lucas Oliveira J E Silva
{"title":"Neuromuscular blocking agents for tracheal intubation of critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Pedro Vitale Mendes, Ian Ward Abdalla Maia, Rafael von Hellmann, Danielle Gerberi, Bruno Adler Maccagnan Pinheiro Besen, Lucas Oliveira J E Silva","doi":"10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001338","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and importance: </strong>Emergency tracheal intubation in critically ill adults is associated with a high risk of peri-intubation adverse events, making first-attempt success a key safety target.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate whether the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) improves the proportion of first-attempt success and reduces adverse events during emergent intubations outside the operating room.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials or nonrandomized studies comparing sedative-hypnotic plus NMBA versus sedative-hypnotic alone in critically ill adults undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation in nonoperative settings. Animal, cadaveric, manikin/simulation, and pediatric studies were excluded. Articles were screened on 21 August 2025, in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science Core Collection.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Of 4736 screened citations, 13 studies (8 cohort; 5 before-after studies) were included in the quantitative analysis, with 14 072 participants. NMBA use was associated with higher first-attempt success, which ranged from 69 to 92% (pooled odds ratio, 2.72; 95% onfidence interval: 1.42-5.21; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes related to adverse events were rated as very low certainty due to sparse data, inconsistent reporting, and serious imprecision.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>NMBA use during emergency intubation was associated with improved first-attempt success, although the certainty of evidence was low.</p>","PeriodicalId":11893,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"324-333"},"PeriodicalIF":5.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0000000000001338","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and importance: Emergency tracheal intubation in critically ill adults is associated with a high risk of peri-intubation adverse events, making first-attempt success a key safety target.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) improves the proportion of first-attempt success and reduces adverse events during emergent intubations outside the operating room.
Methods: This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials or nonrandomized studies comparing sedative-hypnotic plus NMBA versus sedative-hypnotic alone in critically ill adults undergoing emergency endotracheal intubation in nonoperative settings. Animal, cadaveric, manikin/simulation, and pediatric studies were excluded. Articles were screened on 21 August 2025, in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science Core Collection.
Main results: Of 4736 screened citations, 13 studies (8 cohort; 5 before-after studies) were included in the quantitative analysis, with 14 072 participants. NMBA use was associated with higher first-attempt success, which ranged from 69 to 92% (pooled odds ratio, 2.72; 95% onfidence interval: 1.42-5.21; low-certainty evidence). Secondary outcomes related to adverse events were rated as very low certainty due to sparse data, inconsistent reporting, and serious imprecision.
Conclusion: NMBA use during emergency intubation was associated with improved first-attempt success, although the certainty of evidence was low.
背景和重要性:危重成人紧急气管插管与插管周围不良事件的高风险相关,使首次尝试成功成为关键的安全目标。目的:本研究旨在评估神经肌肉阻滞剂(nmba)的使用是否能提高手术外紧急插管的首次尝试成功率并减少不良事件。方法:这是一项随机临床试验或非随机研究的系统综述和荟萃分析,比较镇静催眠加NMBA与单独镇静催眠在非手术环境下接受紧急气管插管的危重成人。排除了动物、尸体、人体/模拟和儿科研究。文章于2025年8月21日在Ovid MEDLINE、Ovid Embase、Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials和Web of Science Core Collection中进行筛选。主要结果:在筛选的4736篇引文中,有13篇研究(8篇队列研究,5篇前后对照研究)被纳入定量分析,共纳入受试者14072人。NMBA的使用与较高的首次尝试成功率相关,其范围为69 - 92%(合并优势比为2.72;95%置信区间为1.42-5.21;低确定性证据)。由于数据稀疏、报告不一致和严重不精确,与不良事件相关的次要结局被评为非常低的确定性。结论:尽管证据的确定性较低,但急诊插管时使用NMBA可提高首次插管成功率。
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Emergency Medicine is the official journal of the European Society for Emergency Medicine. It is devoted to serving the European emergency medicine community and to promoting European standards of training, diagnosis and care in this rapidly growing field.
Published bimonthly, the Journal offers original papers on all aspects of acute injury and sudden illness, including: emergency medicine, anaesthesiology, cardiology, disaster medicine, intensive care, internal medicine, orthopaedics, paediatrics, toxicology and trauma care. It addresses issues on the organization of emergency services in hospitals and in the community and examines postgraduate training from European and global perspectives. The Journal also publishes papers focusing on the different models of emergency healthcare delivery in Europe and beyond. With a multidisciplinary approach, the European Journal of Emergency Medicine publishes scientific research, topical reviews, news of meetings and events of interest to the emergency medicine community.
Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.