Andreas Creutzburg, Anders Kehlet Nørskov, Michelle Icka Christensen, Arash Afshari, Lars Hyldborg Lundstrøm, Louise Bill, Helene Korvenius Nedergaard, Matias Vested
{"title":"避免与使用神经肌肉阻断剂优化视频喉镜辅助气管插管:一项系统评价方案,荟萃分析和试验序列分析。","authors":"Andreas Creutzburg, Anders Kehlet Nørskov, Michelle Icka Christensen, Arash Afshari, Lars Hyldborg Lundstrøm, Louise Bill, Helene Korvenius Nedergaard, Matias Vested","doi":"10.1111/aas.70008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the Difficult Airway Society recommend the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) to facilitate tracheal intubation and to reduce the risk of complications. Even though it is recommended to use video laryngoscopy for intubation, especially in circumstances where difficult tracheal intubation is expected, the evidence for the combination of video laryngoscopy and NMBAs is sparse. This protocol outlines a systematic review of the effect of avoidance versus use of NMBAs for tracheal intubation during video laryngoscopy in adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This protocol is made in accordance with reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocols recommendations. We intent to include randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of avoidance versus use of NMBAs during video laryngoscopy to facilitate tracheal intubation (either nasal or oral) in the adult population. The primary outcome is failed first-pass intubation. Our secondary outcomes include adverse and serious adverse events. A thorough search will be done to identify relevant trials, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Web of Science and CIHNAL. Furthermore, trial registries will be searched for unpublished trials. Each trial will be evaluated for bias. We will use appropriate packages in R to perform the meta-analysis. Additionally, we will perform trial sequential analysis on the meta-analysis of our primary outcome. Lastly, we will employ the GRADE approach and create \"Summary of Findings\" tables.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":"69 3","pages":"e70008"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11842299/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Avoidance versus use of neuromuscular blocking agents for optimizing video laryngoscopy-assisted tracheal intubation: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Andreas Creutzburg, Anders Kehlet Nørskov, Michelle Icka Christensen, Arash Afshari, Lars Hyldborg Lundstrøm, Louise Bill, Helene Korvenius Nedergaard, Matias Vested\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aas.70008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Both the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the Difficult Airway Society recommend the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) to facilitate tracheal intubation and to reduce the risk of complications. Even though it is recommended to use video laryngoscopy for intubation, especially in circumstances where difficult tracheal intubation is expected, the evidence for the combination of video laryngoscopy and NMBAs is sparse. This protocol outlines a systematic review of the effect of avoidance versus use of NMBAs for tracheal intubation during video laryngoscopy in adults.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This protocol is made in accordance with reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocols recommendations. We intent to include randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of avoidance versus use of NMBAs during video laryngoscopy to facilitate tracheal intubation (either nasal or oral) in the adult population. The primary outcome is failed first-pass intubation. Our secondary outcomes include adverse and serious adverse events. A thorough search will be done to identify relevant trials, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Web of Science and CIHNAL. Furthermore, trial registries will be searched for unpublished trials. Each trial will be evaluated for bias. We will use appropriate packages in R to perform the meta-analysis. Additionally, we will perform trial sequential analysis on the meta-analysis of our primary outcome. Lastly, we will employ the GRADE approach and create \\\"Summary of Findings\\\" tables.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":\"69 3\",\"pages\":\"e70008\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11842299/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70008\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.70008","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:欧洲麻醉与重症监护学会和困难气道学会都推荐使用神经肌肉阻断剂(nmba)来促进气管插管并降低并发症的风险。尽管建议使用视频喉镜进行插管,特别是在预计气管插管困难的情况下,但视频喉镜与nmba结合的证据很少。本方案概述了在成人视频喉镜检查中避免使用与使用nmba气管插管的效果的系统综述。方法:本方案按照系统评价报告项目和荟萃分析方案的建议制定。我们打算纳入随机对照试验,评估成人在视频喉镜检查中避免使用与使用nmba的效果,以促进气管插管(鼻或口)。主要结果是首次插管失败。我们的次要结局包括不良和严重不良事件。将通过CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMBASE、BIOSIS、Web of Science和CIHNAL等数据库对相关试验进行全面检索。此外,将检索试验注册库中未发表的试验。对每个试验进行偏倚评估。我们将在R中使用适当的包来执行元分析。此外,我们将对主要结局的meta分析进行试验序列分析。最后,我们将采用GRADE方法并创建“发现摘要”表。
Avoidance versus use of neuromuscular blocking agents for optimizing video laryngoscopy-assisted tracheal intubation: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.
Background: Both the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the Difficult Airway Society recommend the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) to facilitate tracheal intubation and to reduce the risk of complications. Even though it is recommended to use video laryngoscopy for intubation, especially in circumstances where difficult tracheal intubation is expected, the evidence for the combination of video laryngoscopy and NMBAs is sparse. This protocol outlines a systematic review of the effect of avoidance versus use of NMBAs for tracheal intubation during video laryngoscopy in adults.
Methods: This protocol is made in accordance with reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocols recommendations. We intent to include randomised controlled trials assessing the effect of avoidance versus use of NMBAs during video laryngoscopy to facilitate tracheal intubation (either nasal or oral) in the adult population. The primary outcome is failed first-pass intubation. Our secondary outcomes include adverse and serious adverse events. A thorough search will be done to identify relevant trials, including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Web of Science and CIHNAL. Furthermore, trial registries will be searched for unpublished trials. Each trial will be evaluated for bias. We will use appropriate packages in R to perform the meta-analysis. Additionally, we will perform trial sequential analysis on the meta-analysis of our primary outcome. Lastly, we will employ the GRADE approach and create "Summary of Findings" tables.
期刊介绍:
Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.