Comparison of the modified Mallampati classification score versus the best visible Mallampati score in the prediction of difficult tracheal intubation: a single-centre prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: The modified Mallampati classification is part of the preoperative airway risk assessment. Inconsistency in the way it is examined may contribute to heterogeneity in its diagnostic performance. The best visible Mallampati score could reduce interobserver heterogeneity but its diagnostic characteristics remain unknown. METHODS: During preoperative anesthesia consultation of adult patients with a senior anesthesiologist, we compared the modified Mallampati classification score vs the best visible Mallampati score using cervical extension, tongue in, and phonation. The primary outcome was the diagnostic characteristic of the modified Mallampati classification score vs the best visible Mallampati score as predictors of difficult orotracheal intubation (more than two direct laryngoscopies or need for an alternate device). We performed a multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of difficult orotracheal intubation in the tested cohort. RESULTS: Difficult orotracheal intubation occurred in 77/3,243 (2.4%) patients. A best visible Mallampati score was obtained in 1,596 (49.2%) patients. Sensitivity and specificity of the modified Mallampati classification score for predicting difficult orotracheal intubation were 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.66) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.71), respectively. By comparison, the best visible Mallampati score was less sensitive (difference, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.30; P < 0.001) but more specific (difference, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.22 to -0.25; P < 0.001). In patients with difficult orotracheal intubation, 53% were incorrectly reclassified as low risk by the best visible Mallampati score. CONCLUSION: Compared with the modified Mallampati classification score, the best visible Mallampati score decreased sensitivity for predicting difficult orotracheal intubation and falsely classified half of the patients with difficult orotracheal intubation. Taking the risks associated with difficult airways into account, our findings indicate that a careful examination of the modified Mallampati classification is required during the global preoperative airway examination. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02788253 ); 9 February 2016.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La classification de Mallampati modifiée fait partie de l'évaluation préopératoire des risques pour les voies aériennes. La disparité dans la façon dont elle est examinée peut contribuer à l'hétérogénéité de ses performances diagnostiques. Le meilleur score de Mallampati visible pourrait réduire l'hétérogénéité inter-observateurs, mais ses caractéristiques diagnostiques restent inconnues. MéTHODE: Lors de la consultation d'anesthésie préopératoire de patient·es adultes avec un·e anesthésiologiste senior, nous avons comparé le score de classification sur l'échelle de Mallampati modifiée vs le meilleur score de Mallampati visible en utilisant l'extension cervicale, la langue rentrée, et la phonation. Le critère d'évaluation principal était la caractéristique diagnostique du score modifié de classification de Mallampati vs le meilleur score de Mallampati visible comme prédicteurs d'une intubation orotrachéale difficile (plus de deux laryngoscopies directes ou nécessité d'un autre dispositif). Nous avons réalisé une analyse multivariée pour identifier les prédicteurs indépendants d'intubation orotrachéale difficile dans la cohorte testée. RéSULTATS: Une intubation orotrachéale difficile est survenue chez 77 patient·es sur 3243 (2,4 %). Le meilleur score de Mallampati visible a été obtenu chez 1596 patient·es (49,2 %). La sensibilité et la spécificité du score de classification de Mallampati modifié pour prédire l'intubation orotrachéale difficile étaient de 0,56 (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,44 à 0,66) et 0,69 (IC 95 %, 0,68 à 0,71), respectivement. À titre de comparaison, le score de Mallampati le plus visible était moins sensible (différence, −0,30; IC 95 %, −0,19 à −0,30; P < 0,001) mais plus spécifique (différence, 0,24; IC 95 %, 0,22 à −0,25; P < 0,001). Chez les patient·es présentant une intubation orotrachéale difficile, 53 % ont été reclassé·es à tort comme à faible risque par le score de Mallampati le plus visible. CONCLUSION: Par rapport au score modifié de classification de Mallampati, le score de Mallampati le mieux visible a diminué la sensibilité pour prédire l'intubation orotrachéale difficile et a faussement classé la moitié des patient·es présentant une intubation orotrachéale difficile. En tenant compte des risques associés aux voies aériennes difficiles, nos résultats indiquent qu'un examen minutieux de la classification de Mallampati modifiée est nécessaire lors de l'examen préopératoire global des voies aériennes. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02788253 ); 9 février 2016.

The 2024 French guidelines for scenario design in simulation-based education: manikin-based immersive simulation, simulated participant-based immersive simulation and procedural simulation.

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based education in healthcare encompasses a wide array of modalities aimed at providing realistic clinical experiences supported by meticulously designed scenarios. The French-speaking Society for Simulation in Healthcare (SoFraSimS) has developed guidelines to assist educators in the design of scenarios for manikin- or simulated participant- based immersive simulation and procedural simulation, the three mainly used modalities. METHODS: After establishing a French-speaking group of experts within the SoFraSimS network, we performed an extensive literature review with theory-informed practices and personal experiences. We used this approach identify the essential criteria for practice-based scenario design within the three simulation modalities. RESULTS: We present three comprehensive templates for creating innovative scenarios and simulation sessions, each tailored to the specific characteristics of a simulation modality. The SoFraSimS templates include five sections distributed between the three modalities. The first section contextualizes the scenario by describing the practicalities of the setting, the instructors and learners, and its connection to the educational program. The second section outlines the learning objectives. The third lists all the elements necessary during the preparation phase, describing the educational method used for procedural simulation (such as demonstration, discovery, mastery learning, and deliberate practice). The fourth section addresses the simulation phase, detailing the behaviors the instructor aims to analyze, the embedded triggers, and the anticipated impact on simulation proceedings (natural feedback). This ensures maximum control over the learning experience. Finally, the fifth section compiles elements for post-simulation modifications to enhance future iterations. CONCLUSION: We trust that these guidelines will prove valuable to educators seeking to implement simulation-based education and contribute to the standardization of scenarios for healthcare students and professionals. This standardization aims to facilitate communication, comparison of practices and collaboration across different learning and healthcare institutions.

'What this article adds'1. The SoFraSimS provides guidelines to facilitate the development of simulation-based activities.2. These guidelines are theory-informed as well as evidence and experience-based.3. A detailed approach to writing a complete activity or scenario for procedural and immersive simulation including manikins or simulated participants is provided (the 'SoFraSimS templates').4. This work aims at standardizing practices and exchanging scenarios between simulation centers.

Clinical triggers and vital signs influencing crisis acknowledgment and calls for help by anesthesiologists: A simulation-based observational study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: In a perioperative emergency, anesthesiologists must acknowledge the unfolding crisis promptly, call for timely assistance, and avert patient harm. We aimed to identify vital signs and qualitative factors prompting crisis acknowledgment and to compare responses between observers and participants in simulation. DESIGN: Prospective, simulation-based, observational study. SETTING: An anesthesia crisis resource management course at a freestanding simulation center. SUBJECTS: Sixty attending anesthesiologists from a variety of practice settings. INTERVENTIONS: In each case, a primary anesthesiologist in charge (PAIC) managed a simulated patient undergoing a uniformly scripted sequence of perioperative anaphylaxis and called for help from another anesthesiologist when a crisis began. Anesthesiologist observers (AOs) viewed the case separately and recorded times of crisis onset. MEASUREMENTS: Simulation footage was reviewed by investigators for patient vital signs and participant behaviors at times of crisis acknowledgment, with the call for help as an explicit proxy for PAIC crisis acknowledgment. These factors were categorized, and group-level data were compared. RESULTS: Nineteen PAICs and 41 AOs were included. Clinicians acknowledged crises around a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg and oxygen saturation of 94% as anaphylactic shock progressed. PAICs acknowledged crises at a higher respiratory rate than AOs (20 vs. 18 breaths/min, p = 0.038). Other vitals and timing of crisis acknowledgment did not differ between PAICs and AOs. Nearly half of all participants (45%) identified crises at MAP <65 mmHg. Timing of crisis acknowledgment varied widely (range: 421 s). CONCLUSIONS: Despite overall heterogeneity in clinical performance, anesthesiologists acknowledged crises per standard definitions of hypotension. Thresholds for crisis acknowledgment did not significantly differ between PAICs and AOs, suggesting minimal effect from active care responsibility. Many indicated crises at MAP <65 mmHg or after significant deterioration, risking failure-to-rescue events. We suggest that crisis management instruction should address triggers for requesting help.

Strategy to Develop a Common Simulation Training Program: Illustration with Anesthesia and Intensive Care Residency in France.

Phenomenon: The urgency of having fair and trustworthy competency-based assessment in medical training is growing. Simulation is increasingly recognized as a potent method for building and assessing applied competencies. The growing use of simulation and its application in summative assessment calls for comprehensive and rigorously designed programs. Defining the current baseline of what is available and feasible is a crucial first step. This paper uses anesthesia and intensive care (AIC) in France as a case study in how to document this baseline. Approach: An IRB-approved, online anonymous closed survey was submitted to AIC residency program directors and AIC simulation program directors in France from January to February 2021. The researcher-developed survey consisted of 65 questions across five sections: centers' characteristics, curricular characteristics, courses' characteristics, instructors' characteristics, and simulation perceptions and perspectives. Findings: The participation rate was 31/31 (100%) with 29 centers affiliated with a university hospital. All centers had AIC simulation activities. Resident training was structured in 94% of centers. Simulation uses were training (100%), research and development (61%), procedural or organizational testing (42%), and summative assessment (13%). Interprofessional full-scale simulation training existed in 90% of centers. Procedural training on simulators prior to clinical patients' care was performed "always" in 16%, "most often" in 45%, "sometimes" in 29% and "rarely" or "not" in 10% of centers. Simulated patients were used in 61% of centers. Main themes were identified for procedural skills, full-scale and simulated patient simulation training. Simulation activity was perceived as increasing in 68% of centers. Centers expressed a desire to participate in developing and using a national common AIC simulation program. Insights: Based on our findings in AIC, we demonstrated a baseline description of nationwide simulation activities. We now have a clearer perspective on a decentralized approach in which individual institutions or regional consortia conduct simulation for a discipline in a relatively homogeneous way, suggesting the feasibility for national guidelines. This approach provides useful clues for AIC and other disciplines to develop a comprehensive and meaningful program matching existing expectations and closing the identified gaps.

Simulation-based summative assessment in healthcare: an overview of key principles for practice.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare curricula need summative assessments relevant to and representative of clinical situations to best select and train learners. Simulation provides multiple benefits with a growing literature base proving its utility for training in a formative context. Advancing to the next step, "the use of simulation for summative assessment" requires rigorous and evidence-based development because any summative assessment is high stakes for participants, trainers, and programs. The first step of this process is to identify the baseline from which we can start. METHODS: First, using a modified nominal group technique, a task force of 34 panelists defined topics to clarify the why, how, what, when, and who for using simulation-based summative assessment (SBSA). Second, each topic was explored by a group of panelists based on state-of-the-art literature reviews technique with a snowball method to identify further references. Our goal was to identify current knowledge and potential recommendations for future directions. Results were cross-checked among groups and reviewed by an independent expert committee. RESULTS: Seven topics were selected by the task force: "What can be assessed in simulation?", "Assessment tools for SBSA", "Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Debriefing, video, and research for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA", and "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare". Together, these seven explorations provide an overview of what is known and can be done with relative certainty, and what is unknown and probably needs further investigation. Based on this work, we highlighted the trustworthiness of different summative assessment-related conclusions, the remaining important problems and questions, and their consequences for participants and institutions of how SBSA is conducted. CONCLUSION: Our results identified among the seven topics one area with robust evidence in the literature ("What can be assessed in simulation?"), three areas with evidence that require guidance by expert opinion ("Assessment tools for SBSA", "Scenarios for SBSA", "Implementation of SBSA in healthcare"), and three areas with weak or emerging evidence ("Consequences of undergoing the SBSA process", "Debriefing for SBSA", "Trainers for SBSA"). Using SBSA holds much promise, with increasing demand for this application. Due to the important stakes involved, it must be rigorously conducted and supervised. Guidelines for good practice should be formalized to help with conduct and implementation. We believe this baseline can direct future investigation and the development of guidelines.

Change in Sleep Quality of Residents the Night Before High-Fidelity Simulation: Results From a Prospective 1-Year National Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The stress level of participants in high-fidelity simulation stems from various factors but may result in anticipatory anxiety causing sleep disturbances during the night prior to simulation. The objective of this survey was to determine the change in sleep quality of residents during the night prior to the simulation. METHODS: The survey was proposed for 1 year to all residents at the beginning of the simulation, in 10 simulation centres. The questionnaire combined demographics and the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire using visual analogue scales divided into 4 sleep qualitative domains. The primary outcome was the prevalence of sleep disturbance (>10 mm on 1 domain). Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of severe sleep disturbance (>25 mm), as well as qualitatively and quantitatively reported explanatory sleep parameters. RESULTS: Among respondents, 66% [95% CI: 63 to 69] of residents had more than 10 mm and 27% [95% CI: 24 to 30] had more than 25 mm of sleep disturbance. Residents with a sleep disturbance of more than 10 mm had fewer hours of sleep (6.4 [standard deviation=1.8] vs 7.3 [standard deviation=1.3], difference: -0.9 [95% CI: -1.1 to -0.7]; P < .0001), with a higher number of night-time awakenings (1.3 [standard deviation=1.5] vs 0.7 [standard deviation=0.9], difference: 0.6 [95% CI: 0.4 to 0.8]; P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Among residents participating in the simulation, a high prevalence of change in sleep quality during the night before the simulation was noted. Strategies to help residents achieve better sleep prior to simulation should be explored.

First steps towards international competency goals for residency training: a qualitative comparison of 3 regional standards in anesthesiology.

BACKGROUND: Competency-based medical education (CBME) has revolutionized approaches to training by making expectations more concrete, visible, and relevant for trainees. Designing, applying, and updating CBME requirements challenges residency programs, which must address many aspects of training simultaneously. This challenge also exists for educational regulatory bodies in creating and adjusting national competencies to standardize training expectations. We propose that an international approach for mapping residency training requirements may provide a baseline for assessing commonalities and differences. This approach allows us to take our first steps towards creating international competency goals to enhance sharing of best practices in education and clinical work. METHODS: We chose anesthesiology residency training as our example discipline. Using two rounds of content analysis, we qualitatively compared published anesthesiology residency competencies for the European Union (The European Training Requirement), United States (ACGME Milestones), and Canada (CanMEDS Competence By Design), focusing on similarities and differences in representation (round one) and emphasis (round two) to generate hypotheses on practical solutions regarding international educational standards. RESULTS: We mapped the similarities and discrepancies between the three repositories. Round one revealed that 93% of competencies were common between the three repositories. Major differences between European Training Requirement, US Milestones, and Competence by Design competencies involved critical emergency medicine. Round two showed that over 30% of competencies were emphasized equally, with notable exceptions that European Training Requirement emphasized Anaesthesia Non-Technical Skills, Competence by Design highlighted more granular competencies within specific anesthesiology situations, and US Milestones emphasized professionalism and behavioral practices. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative comparison has identified commonalities and differences in anesthesiology training which may facilitate sharing broader perspectives on diverse high-quality educational, clinical, and research practices to enhance innovative approaches. Determining these overlaps in residency training can prompt international educational societies responsible for creating competencies to collaborate to design future training programs. This approach may be considered as a feasible method to build an international core of residency competency requirements for other disciplines.

[Innovation and simulation in training]. / Innovation et simulation en formation.

Faced with exceptional healthcare situations, training must continue, adapt to the constraints and innovate, both in terms of the content, little-known or emerging pathologies, and of the teaching methods used, ranging from lectures to simulation sessions.

Impacts of chest compression cycle length and real-time feedback with a CPRmeter® on chest compression quality in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled factorial plan trial.

BACKGROUND: With a survival rate of 6 to 11%, out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains a healthcare challenge with room for improvement in morbidity and mortality. The guidelines emphasize the highest possible quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and chest compressions (CC). It is essential to minimize CC interruptions, and therefore increase the chest compression fraction (CCF), as this is an independent factor for survival. Survival is significantly and positively correlated with the suitability of CCF targets, CC frequency, CC depth, and brief predefibrillation pause. CC guidance improves adherence to recommendations and allows closer alignment with the CC objectives. The possibility of improving CCF by lengthening the time between two CC relays and the effect of real-time feedback on the quality of the CC must be investigated. METHODS: Using a 2 × 2 factorial design in a multicenter randomized trial, two hypotheses will be tested simultaneously: (i) a 4-min relay rhythm improves the CCF (reducing the no-flow time) compared to the currently recommended 2-min relay rate, and (ii) a guiding tool improves the quality of CC. Primary outcomes (i) CCF and (ii) correct compression score will be recorded by a real-time feedback device. Five hundred adult nontraumatic OHCAs will be included over 2 years. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1:1:1 distribution receiving advanced CPR as follows: 2-min blind, 2 min with guidance, 4-min blind, or 4 min with guidance. Secondary outcomes are the depth, frequency, and release of CC; length (care, no-flow, and low-flow); rate of return of spontaneous circulation; characteristics of advanced CPR; survival at hospital admission; survival and neurological state on days 1 and 30 (or intensive care discharge); and dosage of neuron-specific enolase on days 1 and 3. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to assessing the impact of real-time feedback on CC quality in practical conditions of OHCA resuscitation. It will also provide insight into the feasibility of extending the relay rhythm between two rescuers from the currently recommended 2 to 4 min. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03817892 . Registered on 28 January 2019.

Perioperative non-invasive haemodynamic optimisation using photoplethysmography: A randomised controlled trial and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed at evaluating the effect of a haemodynamic algorithm using SV maximisation by non-invasive photoplethysmography (interventional group) on the incidence of postoperative complications compared with a control group using intermittent mean arterial pressure. METHODS: The non-blinded parallel-group trial randomised low-risk patients undergoing colorectal surgery into either interventional group or control group. The primary outcome was the incidence of patients with at least one complication during the 30 days following surgery. The secondary outcomes were the total number of complications, the length of hospital stay and postoperative mortality. A meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing perioperative haemodynamic optimisation (interventional group) using photoplethysmography with control group was performed to assess the external validity. RESULTS: Among 160 randomised patients, 159 were analysed (80 and 79 in interventional and control groups, respectively). Demographic characteristics were similar in both groups. Postoperative complications occurred in 40 (50%) and 34 (43%) patients in the interventional and control groups, respectively (P=0.471). There were no significant differences between the two groups regarding the total number of complications (P=0.078), the hospital length of stay (P=0.960), or postoperative mortality (P=1.000). In the meta-analysis including 1089 patients in 7 randomised controlled studies, 203 (38%) and 221 (40%) patients suffered from at least one complication following surgery [risk ratio 0.89 (95% CI 0.68-1.17), P=0.407] in interventional and control groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of the present study and meta-analysis, a haemodynamic perioperative algorithm using SV maximisation by non-invasive photoplethysmography cannot reduce postoperative morbidity.

Early management of severe pelvic injury (first 24 hours).

OBJECTIVE: Pelvic fractures represent 5% of all traumatic fractures and 30% are isolated pelvic fractures. Pelvic fractures are found in 10 to 20% of severe trauma patients and their presence is highly correlated to increasing trauma severity scores. The high mortality of pelvic trauma, about 8 to 15%, is related to actively bleeding pelvic injuries and/or associated injuries to the head, abdomen or chest. Regardless of the severity of pelvic trauma, diagnosis and treatment must proceed according to a strategy that does not delay the management of the most severely injured patients. To date, in France, there are no guidelines issued by healthcare authorities or professional societies that address this subject. DESIGN: A consensus committee of 22 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société Française d'Anesthésie et de Réanimation; SFAR) and the French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société Française de Médecine d'Urgence; SFMU) in collaboration with the French Society of Radiology (Société Française de Radiologie; SFR), French Defence Health Service (Service de Santé des Armées; SSA), French Society of Urology (Association Française d'Urologie; AFU), the French Society of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery (Société Française de Chirurgie Orthopédique et Traumatologique; SOCFCOT), and the French Society of Digestive Surgery (Société Française de Chirurgie digestive; SFCD) was convened. A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independently from any industry funding. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised. METHODS: Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. The analysis of the literature and the recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE® methodology. RESULTS: The SFAR Guideline panel provided 22 statements on prehospital and hospital management of the unstable patient with pelvic fracture. After three rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of recommendations. Of these recommendations, 11 have a high level of evidence (Grade 1 ± ), 11 have a low level of evidence (Grade 2 ± ). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among experts regarding many strong recommendations for management of the unstable patient with pelvic fracture.

Implementation of a novel synchronous multi-site all day high-fidelity simulation.

Integration of simulation in educational curricula for anesthesia and intensive care residents is a hot topic. There is a great interest for simulation centers to share their experiences through multi-site synchronous simulation sessions. The present study results from an experience conducted at three sites in France (Paris, Lyon, and Caen), which involved 16 instructors and 25 residents facing the same scenario across 1 day. Synchronous simulations were performed at each site with local and shared debriefing via teleconference. This innovative approach to simulation was found to be feasible, although certain difficulties were encountered with connectivity.

Effect of sleep deprivation after a night shift duty on simulated crisis management by residents in anaesthesia. A randomised crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Sleep deprivation has been associated with an increased incidence of medical errors and can jeopardise patients' safety during medical crisis management. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of sleep deprivation on the management of simulated anaesthesia crisis by residents in anaesthesiology. METHODS: A randomised, comparative, monocentric crossover study involving 48 residents in anaesthesia was performed on a high fidelity patient simulator. Each resident was evaluated in a sleep-deprived state (deprived group, after a night shift duty) and control state (control group, after a night of sleep). Performance was assessed through points obtained during crisis scenario 1 (oesophageal intubation followed by anaphylactic shock) and scenario 2 (anaesthesia-related bronchospasm followed by ventricular tachycardia). Sleep periods were recorded by actigraphy. Two independent observers assessed the performances. The primary endpoint of the study was the score obtained for each scenario. RESULTS: Resident's crisis management performance is associated with sleep deprivation (scenario 1: control=39 [33-42] points vs. deprived=26 [19-40] points, P=0.02; scenario 2: control=21 [17-24] vs. deprived=14 [12-19], P=0.01). The main errors observed were: error in drug administration and dose, delay in identification of hypotension, and missing communication with the surgical team about situation. CONCLUSIONS: The present study showed that sleep deprivation is associated with impairment of performance to manage crisis situations by residents in anaesthesia.

Comparison of the Mallampati Classification in Sitting and Supine Position to Predict Difficult Tracheal Intubation: A Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The Mallampati classification (MLPT) is normally evaluated in the sitting position. However, many patients cannot be evaluated in the sitting position for medical reasons. Thus, we compared the MLPT in sitting and supine positions in predicting difficult tracheal intubation (DTI). We hypothesized that the diagnostic accuracy of the MLPT performed in sitting and supine positions would differ. METHODS: We performed a single-center prospective observational study in adult patients who received general anesthesia and orotracheal intubation for noncardiac surgery. During the preanesthesia consultation, the MLPT in the sitting position was recorded. The day of surgery, the MLPT in the supine position and the difficulty of intubation (DTI) were recorded by an independent observer. The diagnostic performance of the MLPT for the prediction of DTI was evaluated in the sitting and supine positions through the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. The performance of the Naguib score in predicting DTI was calculated with the MLPT in sitting and supine positions. RESULTS: Among the 3036 patients, 157 (5.1%) had DTI. The area under the ROC curve for the MLPT in supine position (0.82 [0.78-0.84]) was greater than that for the MLPT in the sitting position (0.70 [0.66-0.75]; P < .001). The relationship between the sitting and supine MLPTs was moderate (Spearman rank correlation coefficient: 0.50; P < .001). The area under ROC curve for predicting DTI by the Naguib score calculated with the supine MLPT (0.78 [95% confidence interval, 0.74-0.82]) was greater than that for the Naguib score calculated with MLPT in the sitting position (0.69 [95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.74)]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The MLPT performed in the supine position is possibly superior to that performed in the sitting position for predicting difficult intubation in adults.