Airtraq® versus GlideScope® for tracheal intubation in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

PURPOSE: In recent years, various types of indirect laryngoscopes have been developed. Nevertheless, no conclusions have been drawn about which type of indirect laryngoscope is most effective for tracheal intubation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the Airtraq® or the GlideScope® is more effective for tracheal intubation. METHODS: We extracted studies of adult prospective randomized trials comparing tracheal intubation between the Airtraq and GlideScope. An electronic database was used to extract the studies included in our meta-analysis. We extracted the following data from the identified studies: success rate, glottic visualization, and intubation time. Data from each trial were combined via a random-effects model for calculation of pooled relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed trial sequential analysis. RESULTS: We included eight trials comprising 571 patients for review. Compared with the GlideScope, Airtraq did not improve success rate, glottic visualization, or intubation time in tracheal intubation (success rate: RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.05; P = 0.58; I2 = 65%; glottic visualization: RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.29; P = 0.69; I2 = 64%; and intubation time: WMD, 1.4 seconds ; 95% CI, -6.2 to 9.1; P = 0.72; I2 = 96%). The quality of evidence was graded as "very low." Trial sequential analysis showed that total sample size did not reach the required information size for all parameters. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, use of the Airtraq indirect laryngoscope did not result in improved success rate, glottic visualization, or intubation time in tracheal intubation compared with the GlideScope. Trial sequential analysis suggests that further studies are necessary to confirm these findings.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Ces dernières années, différents types de laryngoscopes indirects ont été mis au point. Néanmoins, aucune conclusion n'a été tirée sur le type de laryngoscope indirect le plus efficace pour l'intubation trachéale. Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique et une méta-analyse pour déterminer quel dispositif était le plus efficace pour l'intubation trachéale, soit l'Airtraq® ou le GlideScope®. MéTHODE: Nous avons extrait les études portant sur les essais randomisés prospectifs chez l'adulte comparant l'intubation trachéale avec l'Airtraq ou le GlideScope. Une base de données électronique a été utilisée pour extraire les études incluses dans notre méta-analyse. Nous avons extrait les données suivantes des études identifiées : taux de réussite, visualisation glottique et temps d'intubation. Les données de chaque étude ont été combinées au moyen d'un modèle à effets aléatoires pour le calcul du risque relatif (RR) groupé ou de la différence moyenne pondérée (DMP) avec un intervalle de confiance (IC) de 95 %. Nous avons également réalisé une analyse séquentielle des études. RéSULTATS: Nous avons inclus huit études portant sur 571 patients pour notre revue. Par rapport au GlideScope, l'Airtraq n'a pas amélioré le taux de réussite, la visualisation glottique ou le temps d'intubation pour l'intubation trachéale (taux de réussite : RR, 0,98; IC 95 %, 0,91 à 1,05; P = 0,58; I2 = 65 %; visualisation glottique : RR, 1.07; IC 95 %, 0,88 à 1,29; P = 0,69; I2 = 64 %; et temps d'intubation : DMP, 1,4 seconde; IC 95 %, -6,2 à 9,1; P = 0,72; I2 = 96 %). La qualité des données probantes a été classée comme « très faible ¼. L'analyse séquentielle des études a montré que la taille totale de l'échantillon n'atteignait pas la taille d'information requise pour tous les paramètres. CONCLUSION: Selon cette méta-analyse, l'utilisation du laryngoscope indirect Airtraq® n'entraîne pas d'amélioration du taux de réussite, de la visualisation glottique ou du temps d'intubation pour une intubation trachéale par rapport au GlideScope®. L'analyse séquentielle des études suggère que d'autres études sont nécessaires pour confirmer ces résultats.

Comparison of Hemodynamic Responses to Administration of Vasopressin and Norepinephrine Under General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials with Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The authors performed a meta-analysis to determine if vasopressin improves hypotension more than norepinephrine under general anesthesia. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING: Operating room. PATIENTS: Patients who underwent surgery, with general anesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: Administration of vasopressin or norepinephrine in order to increase blood pressure. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome of this study was to determine if vasopressin increased mean blood pressure more effectively compared with norepinephrine for patients under general anesthesia. The secondary outcome was to see if vasopressin increased heart rate (HR), central venous pressure (CVP), cardiac output (CO), and cardiac index (CI) more significantly compared with norepinephrine under general anesthesia. The authors calculated the weighted mean difference, with 95% confidence interval (CI) using the random-effects model, and calculated the required information size (RIS) by performing trial sequential analysis (TSA). The authors selected 6 studies for analysis. Vasopressin did not improve hypotension compared with norepinephrine under general anesthesia. (weighted mean difference = -0.84 mmHg, 95% CI: -5.90 to 4.23, p = 0.75, Cochran Q = 24.6, I2 = 84%) In TSA, only 35.5% of RIS was achieved. Similarly, vasopressin and norepinephrine were not significantly different in terms of HR, CVP, CO, and CI. In TSA, only 23.7% of the RIS was reached for HR but RIS was almost achieved for CVP and CO. CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin did not improve hypotension compared with norepinephrine under general anesthesia. The RIS was not reached in TSA, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation is very low. Therefore, further research is needed to reach more robust conclusions.

The Social and Functional Implications of High- Versus Low-Dose Opioids on Chronic Non-Cancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is a major health concern. Opioids may be a useful treatment option, but their use still remains controversial given the significant risks and epidemic of opioid addiction and abuse. There is limited data on whether opioid therapy is an effective treatment option for chronic non-cancer pain. OBJECTIVE: To assess both physical and emotional dimensions of health for patients on opioid therapy for CNCP by reviewing the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) . STUDY DESIGN: This study was a retrospective cohort review. SETTING: Outpatient pain clinic. METHODS: We recruited 182 patients at the West Penn Pain Institute outpatient pain clinic: 94 patients were recruited for the low-dose opioid group (5-30 morphine milligram equivalents [MME]) while 88 patients were recruited for the high-dose opioid group (> 90 MME). Each patient filled out the SF-36 survey used to assess both the physical and emotional dimensions of their health. We also analyzed patients' employment status, reasons for unemployment, pain diagnosis, side effects, and compliance issues through the electronic medical record (EMR). RESULTS: Mean scores on General Health Perceptions for the low-dose and high-dose opioid groups were 50.3 ± 21.6 and 44.4 ± 21.9, respectively (P = .07). Though not reaching statistical significance, high-dose patients had lower item scores, indicating a perception of poorer health. There were no significant differences between the low-dose and high-dose opioid treatment groups on any of the mean scores from the 8 domains of the SF-36. There was a statistically significant association between opioid treatment group and working status, noncompliance, and the self-reported number of side effects. Patients treated with high-dose opioids had significantly higher rates of unemployment (85%) than did low-dose opioid patients (66%) (x-squared[1] = 8.48, P =.004; odds ratio [OR] = 2.89 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.39-6.01]). Unemployed patients in the high-dose treatment group were more likely to list disability as unemployment while retirement was the most common response in the low-dose treatment group. Patients treated with high-dose opioids had significantly higher rates of self-reported side effects (46%) than did low-dose opioid patients (21%) (x-squared[1] = 12.02, P =.001; OR = 3.08 [95% CI, 1.61-5.89]). Patients treated with high-dose opioids had significantly higher rates of noncompliance (49%) than did low-dose opioid patients (33%) (x-squared[1] = 4.75, P =.029; OR = 1.94 [95% CI, 1.07-3.54]). Thus, the odds of a high-dose opioid patient being unemployed were 2.89 times greater than the odds for a low-dose opioid patient; the odds of a high-dose opioid patient self-reporting side-effects were 3.08 times greater than the odds for a low-dose opioid patient; and the odds of a high-dose opioid patient being noncompliant with their medications were 1.94 times greater than the odds for a low-dose opioid patient. LIMITATIONS: The observation al design prohibits drawing causal relationships, and entry criteria was restricted. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that patients receiving low-dose and high-dose opioid treatment do not have significantly different quality-of-life outcomes. Future studies that incorporate longitudinal data are necessary to examine the temporal relationship between quality of life and opioid therapy. KEY WORDS: Chronic pain, chronic non-cancer pain, opioids, pain, quality of life, side effects, noncompliance, unemployment.

C-MAC videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The C-MAC laryngoscope (C-MAC) is a videolaryngoscope that uses a modified Macintosh blade. Although several anecdotal reports exist, it remains unclear whether the C-MAC is superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in the adult population. DESIGN: Systematic review, meta-analysis. SETTING: Operating room, intensive care unit. MEASUREMENTS: For inclusion in our analysis, studies had to be prospective randomised trials which compared the C-MAC with the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in the adult population. Data on success rates, intubation time, glottic visualisation and incidence of external laryngeal manipulations (ELM) during tracheal intubation were extracted from the identified studies. In subgroup analysis, we separated those parameters to assess the influence of the airway condition (normal or difficult) and laryngoscopists (novice or experienced). We conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA). MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen articles with 18 trials met the inclusion criteria. The C-MAC provided better glottic visualisation compared to the Macintosh (RR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.14). TSA corrected the CI to 1.01-1.19; thus, total sample size reached the required information size (RIS). Success rates and intubation time did not differ significantly between the laryngoscopes. TSA showed that total sample size reached the RIS for success rates. The TSA Z curve surpassed the futility boundary. The C-MAC required less ELM compared to the Macintosh (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.96). TSA corrected the CI to 0.67-1.03; 52.3% of the RIS was achieved. In difficult airways, the C-MAC showed superior success rates, glottic visualisation, and less ELM compared to the Macintosh. Among experienced laryngoscopists, the C-MAC offered better glottic visualisation with less ELM than the Macintosh. CONCLUSIONS: The C-MAC provided better glottic visualisation and less ELM (GRADE: Very Low or Moderate), with improved success rates, glottic visualisation, and less ELM in difficult airways.

McGrath videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The McGrath laryngoscope is a novel self-contained videolaryngoscope with a single-use blade. There are several anecdotal reports that the McGrath is superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation. However this remains controversial. DESIGN: Meta-analysis and systematic review. SETTING: Operating room or intensive care unit. MEASUREMENTS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify clinical trials that met our inclusion criteria. To qualify, studies had to be prospective randomized trials comparing tracheal intubation between the McGrath and the Macintosh in an adult population. We extracted data on success rate, glottic visualization during intubation, and intubation time from the studies identified. In subgroup analysis, we assessed the influence on each of these parameters which included airway condition (normal or difficult) and operator (novice or experienced). We then conducted a trial sequential analysis (TSA). MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen articles met our inclusion criteria. The McGrath offered better glottic visualization than the Macintosh (risk ratio, 1.34; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.25-1.45). However, the McGrath required longer intubation time (mean difference, 10.1s; CI, 2.74-17.5) and demonstrated similar success rate of tracheal intubation (risk ratio, 1.00; CI, 0.95-1.05) compared to the Macintosh. TSA showed that total sample size reached the required information size (RIS) in glottic visualization and success rate. However, only 15.1% of the RIS was achieved in intubation time. In the subgroup analysis for airway condition and operator experience level, there were no subgroup differences in both glottic visualization and intubation time. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis suggests that the McGrath is superior to the Macintosh in terms of glottic visualization (GRADE: moderate). However, it significantly extends intubation time (GRADE: very low) and its success rate (GRADE: very low) for tracheal intubation is not excellent. TSA suggests that further studies are necessary to confirm the results of intubation time.

Videolaryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults with obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Videolaryngoscopy has become more common since the 2000s. Despite several anecdotal reports in the literature, it remains unclear whether videolaryngoscopy is superior to direct Macintosh laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in adults with obesity. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on prospective randomised trials comparing videolaryngoscopes with the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults with obesity. DESIGN: Systematic review, Meta-analysis SETTING: Operating room, Obesity patients MEASUREMENTS: Data on success rate, intubation time, and glottic visualisation during tracheal intubation were extracted from the identified studies. In a subgroup analysis, we also compared the parameters for videolaryngoscopes with a tracheal tube guide channel and those without a tracheal tube guide channel. Data from individual trials were combined, and the DerSimonian and Laird random-effect model was used to calculate either the pooled relative risk (RR) or the weighted mean difference (WMD) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). MAIN RESULTS: Eleven articles describing 13 trials met the inclusion criteria. The performance of videolaryngoscopes was superior to that of the Macintosh laryngoscope for all outcomes. (Success rate; RR=1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18, p=0.001, I2=63%, Intubation time; WMD=-16.1, 95% CI -31.1 to -1.10, p=0.04, I2=97%, Glottic visualisation; RR=1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.30, p<0.0001, I2=76%) In the subgroup analysis, the performance of both types of videolaryngoscopes (with and without a tracheal tube guide channel) was superior to that of the Macintosh laryngoscope, except for intubation time with the videolaryngoscopes without a tracheal tube guide channel. CONCLUSIONS: Videolaryngoscopes were superior to the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults with obesity. (GRADE score: low or very low.).

Efficacy of prophylactic doses of intravenous nitroglycerin in preventing myocardial ischemia under general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous nitroglycerin (TNG) in preventing intraoperative myocardial ischemia (MI) under general anesthesia. Moreover, we analyzed the hemodynamic changes in heart rate (HR), mean blood pressure (MBP), and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) associated with TNG administration both before and after the induction of anesthesia. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING: Operating room, cardiac surgery or non-cardiac surgery, all surgeries were elective measurements. We performed a computerized search of articles on PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager. The data from the individual trials were combined using a random-effects model to calculate either the pooled relative risk (RR) or the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA). The primary outcome was the incidence of MI and the secondary outcomes were hemodynamic changes (HR, MBP, and PCWP). MAIN RESULTS: Using electronic databases, we selected 10 trials with a total of 353 patients for our review. Prophylactic intravenous TNG did not significantly decrease the incidence of MI (RR=0.61; CI, 0.33 to 1.13; P=0.12; I2=55). TSA corrected the CI to 0.05 to 7.39 and showed that 9.5% of the required information size was achieved. In terms of hemodynamic changes, intravenous TNG significantly reduced MBP in comparison with the placebo (MBP pre-induction: WMD=-7.27; 95% CI -14.2 to -0.33; P=0.04; I2=97%; MBP post-induction: WMD=-5.13; 95% CI -9.17 to -1.09; P=0.01; I2=73%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analyses showed that prophylactic intravenous TNG does not reduce the incidence of intraoperative MI. Moreover, TSA suggests that further studies are necessary to confirm the results (GRADE: very low). Prophylactic doses of intravenous TNG significantly reduced the MBP both pre and post anesthesia induction (GRADE: very low).

Incidence of postoperative shivering comparing remifentanil with other opioids: a meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the administration of remifentanil increases the incidence of postoperative shivering in comparison with the administration of alfentanil, fentanyl, or sufentanil. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING: Operating room and postanesthesia care unit. MEASUREMENTS: We performed a computerized search of articles on PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager and the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model. The pooled effect estimates for binary variables were calculated as relative risk (RR) values with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen randomized controlled trials met our inclusion criteria. Remifentanil was associated with a significantly increased incidence of postoperative shivering compared with other opioids (RR=2.17; CI, 1.76-2.68; P<.00001; I(2)=0.00%). A subgroup analysis of remifentanil compared with alfentanil, fentanyl, or sufentanil showed that only sufentanil had a similar rate of postoperative shivering incidence (RR=2.13; CI, 0.67-6.74; P=.20; I(2)=0.00%). Remifentanil administration was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of postoperative shivering compared with the administration of other opioids when both propofol (RR=2.44; CI, 1.52-3.92; P=.0002; I(2)=0.00%) and inhalation anesthesia drugs (RR=2.45; CI, 1.46-4.11; P=.0007; I(2)=0.00%) were used for anesthesia maintenance. In addition, the administration of remifentanil at both low (RR=2.06; CI, 1.63-2.60; P<.00001; I(2)=0.00%) and high dosages (RR=2.77; CI, 1.67-4.57; P<.0001; I(2)=0.00%) was associated with a significant increase in the incidence of postoperative shivering compared with the administration of other opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed that remifentanil was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative shivering compared with alfentanil or fentanyl, but no significant difference was seen when compared with sufentanil.