Yuchen Wu, Yatao Liu, Han Ruan, Zhigang Zhang, Junfen Yang, Ning Li, Guoqiang Wang, Xin Wang
{"title":"双腔支气管管和支气管阻滞剂用于胸外科患者单肺通气的有效性和安全性:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"Yuchen Wu, Yatao Liu, Han Ruan, Zhigang Zhang, Junfen Yang, Ning Li, Guoqiang Wang, Xin Wang","doi":"10.1186/s12871-025-03144-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the efficiency and safety of double-lumen bronchial tube (DLBT) and bronchial blocker (BB) for one-lung ventilation (OLV) in patients with thoracic surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across Chinese databases and English databases from the inception of the databases until December 31, 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data. A meta-analysis was then performed using Review Manager 5 and Stata 18.0 software. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool, and a summary of findings (SoF) table was generated using GRADEprofiler Version 3.6.1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 39 RCTs were included, comprising 1360 patients in the BB group and 1349 patients in the DLBT group. The excellent rate of lung collapse quality in the BB group was 0.94 times that in the DLBT group [I<sup>2</sup> = 32%, P = 0.07, fixed-effects; RR = 0.94; 95% CI (0.90, 0.99); P = 0.01]. There was no significant difference in intubation time [I<sup>2</sup> = 97%, P < 0.00001; SMD = -0.51; 95% CI (-1.17, 0.14); P = 0.12], the success rate of first-attempt intubation [I<sup>2</sup> = 79%, P < 0.00001; RR = 1.04; 95% CI (0.93, 1.15); P = 0.51] or in the incidence of malposition[I<sup>2</sup> = 50%, P = 0.01; RR = 1.36; 95% CI (0.95, 1.96); P = 0.10)] between the two groups. However, there was a significant difference in positioning time, with the BB group showing shorter positioning times compared to the DLBT group [I<sup>2</sup> = 98%, P < 0.00001; SMD = -0.85; 95% CI (-1.50, -0.21); P = 0.004]. Compared to the DLBT group, the BB group was associated with a reduced incidence of hoarseness, sore throat, tracheal mucosal injury, hypoxemia, and pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The DLBT group demonstrated certain advantages in terms of lung collapse time and quality of lung collapse. However, BB demonstrate significantly shorter positioning time compared to DLBT, and it is also associated with lower risks of multiple complications, including hoarseness, sore throat, tracheal injury, hypoxemia, and pneumonia, highlighting its safety advantage in postoperative care.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"281"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12125885/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficiency and safety of double-lumen bronchial tube and bronchial blocker for one-lung ventilation in patients with thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Yuchen Wu, Yatao Liu, Han Ruan, Zhigang Zhang, Junfen Yang, Ning Li, Guoqiang Wang, Xin Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12871-025-03144-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare the efficiency and safety of double-lumen bronchial tube (DLBT) and bronchial blocker (BB) for one-lung ventilation (OLV) in patients with thoracic surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted across Chinese databases and English databases from the inception of the databases until December 31, 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data. A meta-analysis was then performed using Review Manager 5 and Stata 18.0 software. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool, and a summary of findings (SoF) table was generated using GRADEprofiler Version 3.6.1.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 39 RCTs were included, comprising 1360 patients in the BB group and 1349 patients in the DLBT group. The excellent rate of lung collapse quality in the BB group was 0.94 times that in the DLBT group [I<sup>2</sup> = 32%, P = 0.07, fixed-effects; RR = 0.94; 95% CI (0.90, 0.99); P = 0.01]. There was no significant difference in intubation time [I<sup>2</sup> = 97%, P < 0.00001; SMD = -0.51; 95% CI (-1.17, 0.14); P = 0.12], the success rate of first-attempt intubation [I<sup>2</sup> = 79%, P < 0.00001; RR = 1.04; 95% CI (0.93, 1.15); P = 0.51] or in the incidence of malposition[I<sup>2</sup> = 50%, P = 0.01; RR = 1.36; 95% CI (0.95, 1.96); P = 0.10)] between the two groups. However, there was a significant difference in positioning time, with the BB group showing shorter positioning times compared to the DLBT group [I<sup>2</sup> = 98%, P < 0.00001; SMD = -0.85; 95% CI (-1.50, -0.21); P = 0.004]. Compared to the DLBT group, the BB group was associated with a reduced incidence of hoarseness, sore throat, tracheal mucosal injury, hypoxemia, and pneumonia.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The DLBT group demonstrated certain advantages in terms of lung collapse time and quality of lung collapse. However, BB demonstrate significantly shorter positioning time compared to DLBT, and it is also associated with lower risks of multiple complications, including hoarseness, sore throat, tracheal injury, hypoxemia, and pneumonia, highlighting its safety advantage in postoperative care.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"281\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12125885/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-03144-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-03144-5","RegionNum":3,"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
目的:比较双腔支气管管(DLBT)与支气管阻滞剂(BB)用于胸外科患者单肺通气(OLV)的有效性和安全性。方法:系统检索自数据库建立至2024年12月31日的中英文数据库。两位研究者独立筛选文献并提取数据。然后使用Review Manager 5和Stata 18.0软件进行meta分析。使用Cochrane偏倚风险评估工具对研究质量进行评估,并使用GRADEprofiler Version 3.6.1生成结果摘要(SoF)表。结果:共纳入39项rct,其中BB组1360例,DLBT组1349例。BB组肺萎陷质量优良率是DLBT组的0.94倍[I2 = 32%, P = 0.07,固定效果;rr = 0.94;95% ci (0.90, 0.99);p = 0.01]。两组插管时间差异无统计学意义[I2 = 97%, p2 = 79%, p2 = 50%, P = 0.01;rr = 1.36;95% ci (0.95, 1.96);P = 0.10)]。但在定位时间上存在显著差异,BB组的定位时间较DLBT组短[I2 = 98%, P]。结论:DLBT组在肺塌陷时间和肺塌陷质量上有一定优势。然而,与DLBT相比,BB的定位时间明显更短,而且出现声音嘶哑、喉咙痛、气管损伤、低氧血症和肺炎等多种并发症的风险也更低,这凸显了其在术后护理中的安全性优势。
Efficiency and safety of double-lumen bronchial tube and bronchial blocker for one-lung ventilation in patients with thoracic surgery: a meta-analysis.
Objectives: To compare the efficiency and safety of double-lumen bronchial tube (DLBT) and bronchial blocker (BB) for one-lung ventilation (OLV) in patients with thoracic surgery.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted across Chinese databases and English databases from the inception of the databases until December 31, 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature and extracted data. A meta-analysis was then performed using Review Manager 5 and Stata 18.0 software. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane bias risk assessment tool, and a summary of findings (SoF) table was generated using GRADEprofiler Version 3.6.1.
Results: A total of 39 RCTs were included, comprising 1360 patients in the BB group and 1349 patients in the DLBT group. The excellent rate of lung collapse quality in the BB group was 0.94 times that in the DLBT group [I2 = 32%, P = 0.07, fixed-effects; RR = 0.94; 95% CI (0.90, 0.99); P = 0.01]. There was no significant difference in intubation time [I2 = 97%, P < 0.00001; SMD = -0.51; 95% CI (-1.17, 0.14); P = 0.12], the success rate of first-attempt intubation [I2 = 79%, P < 0.00001; RR = 1.04; 95% CI (0.93, 1.15); P = 0.51] or in the incidence of malposition[I2 = 50%, P = 0.01; RR = 1.36; 95% CI (0.95, 1.96); P = 0.10)] between the two groups. However, there was a significant difference in positioning time, with the BB group showing shorter positioning times compared to the DLBT group [I2 = 98%, P < 0.00001; SMD = -0.85; 95% CI (-1.50, -0.21); P = 0.004]. Compared to the DLBT group, the BB group was associated with a reduced incidence of hoarseness, sore throat, tracheal mucosal injury, hypoxemia, and pneumonia.
Conclusion: The DLBT group demonstrated certain advantages in terms of lung collapse time and quality of lung collapse. However, BB demonstrate significantly shorter positioning time compared to DLBT, and it is also associated with lower risks of multiple complications, including hoarseness, sore throat, tracheal injury, hypoxemia, and pneumonia, highlighting its safety advantage in postoperative care.
期刊介绍:
BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.