Validation of ERICVA Risk Score as a Predictor of One Year Amputation-Free Survival of Patients with Critical Limb Ischemia.

BACKGROUND: The ERICVA score was derived to predict amputation-free survival in patients with critical limb ischemia (CLI). It may be a useful tool to stratify patients in trials of novel interventions to treat CLI but, as yet, it has not been externally validated. METHODS: A prospective database of CLI patients was developed during prescreening of patients for a phase 1 stem cell therapy clinical trial. The primary outcome was amputation free survival (AFS) at 1 year. Both the full ERICVA scale (11 parameters) and simplified ERICVA scale (5 parameters) were validated. Data analysis was performed by calculation of the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve examining the predictive value of the scores. The Chi-square test was used to examine the association between risk group and one-year AFS and the cumulative survival of the three risk groups was compared using Kaplan Meier survival curves. RESULTS: A series of 179 CLI patients were included in the analysis. The Chi-square test of independence showed a significant association between the risk group (high, medium and low) and one-year AFS outcome (P = 0.0007). Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed significant difference in one-year AFS between the three risk groups (log-rank P < 0.001). The area under the curve (AUC) was found to be 0.63 and 0.61 for the full and simplified score, respectively. The sensitivity of the full score was 0.44 with specificity of 0.84. The simplified score had a sensitivity of 0.28 and specificity of 0.92. CONCLUSION: The ERICVA risk score system was found to have a fair validity but cannot be considered reliable as a single predictor of one year AFS of CLI patients. The simplified score had an AUC almost identical to the full score and can accordingly replace the full score.

Effectiveness of preoxygenation during endotracheal intubation in a head-elevated position: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Preoxygenation during endotracheal intubation is important to ensure the safety of the procedure. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preoxygenation in the head-elevated position as compared to the supine position. The Medline, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception of the study until 29 June 2021. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool and GRADE assessment of certainty of evidence were used. Seven RCTs (n = 508) were analysed, of which 6 were included in the meta-analysis (n = 227). Six studies were carried out in the operating theatre (OT), while one was performed in the critical care (ICU) setting. Compared to the supine position, the head-elevated position significantly increased the duration of the safe apnoea period (mean difference 61.99 s; 95% confidence interval 42.93-81.05 s; P < 0.00001; I2 = 30%; certainty of evidence = high). This improvement was seen in both the obese and non-obese population (I2 = 0%). No differences were seen between both groups with regard to recovery time after apnoea, arterial oxygen tension after preoxygenation, and the incidence of adverse events. In the ICU setting, no difference was found between groups for the incidence of hypoxaemia and the lowest oxygen saturation between induction and after intubation. This meta-analysis demonstrated that the head-elevated position significantly improved the efficacy of preoxygenation during elective intubation in the OT. Clinicians should consider the head-elevated position as a starting intubating position for all patients undergoing anaesthesia in view of its many benefits and the lack of proven adverse consequences. Protocol Registration: This systematic review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO (CRD42019128962).

[A comparison of ramping position and sniffing position during endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis]. / Comparação entre a posição de rampa e posição olfativa durante intubação traqueal: revisão sistemática e meta­análise.

OBJECTIVES: Positioning during endotracheal intubation (ETI) is critical to ensure its success. We aimed to determine if the ramping position improved laryngeal exposure and first attempt success at intubation when compared to the sniffing position. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers and complications during ETI. RESULTS: Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n=632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR=2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p=0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR=0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p=0.004), moderate quality of evidence. CONCLUSION: Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ramping position may benefit surgical patients undergoing ETI by improving laryngeal exposure. Large-scale well-designed multicentre RCTs should be carried out to further elucidate the benefits of the ramping position in the surgical and intensive care unit patients.

A comparison of ramping position and sniffing position during endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Comparação entre a posição de rampa e posição olfativa durante intubação traqueal: revisão sistemática e meta-análise

Abstract Objectives Positioning during endotracheal intubation (ETI) is critical to ensure its success. We aimed to determine if the ramping position improved laryngeal exposure and first attempt success at intubation when compared to the sniffing position. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched systematically from inception until January 2020. Our primary outcomes included laryngeal exposure as measured by Cormack-Lehane Grade 1 or 2 (CLG 1/2), CLG 3 or 4 (CLG 3/4), and first attempt success at intubation. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, use of airway adjuncts, ancillary maneuvers, and complications during ETI. Results Seven studies met our inclusion criteria, of which 4 were RCTs and 3 were cohort studies. The meta-analysis was conducted by pooling the effect estimates for all 4 included RCTs (n = 632). There were no differences found between ramping and sniffing positions for odds of CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, first attempt success at intubation, intubation time, use of ancillary airway maneuvers, and use of airway adjuncts, with evidence of high heterogeneity across studies. However, the ramping position in surgical patients is associated with increased likelihood of CLG 1/2 (OR = 2.05, 95% CI 1.26 to 3.32, p = 0.004) and lower likelihood of CLG 3/4 (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.79, p = 0.004), moderate quality of evidence. Conclusion Our meta-analysis demonstrated that the ramping position may benefit surgical patients undergoing ETI by improving laryngeal exposure. Large scale well designed multicentre RCTs should be carried out to further elucidate the benefits of the ramping position in the surgical and intensive care unit patients.

Resumo Objetivos A posição do paciente durante a Intubação Traqueal (IT) é fundamental para o sucesso do procedimento. Nosso objetivo foi determinar se a posição de rampa melhorou a visualização laríngea e o êxito na primeira tentativa de intubação quando comparada à posição olfativa. Métodos Os bancos de dados PubMed, EMBASE e Cochrane CENTRAL foram pesquisados de forma sistemática a partir da data em que os bancos de dados foram estabelecidos até janeiro de 2020. Nossos desfechos primários incluíram a visualização laríngea avaliada como Cormack‐Lehane Grau 1 ou 2 (CLG 1/2), Cormack‐Lehane Grau 3 ou 4 (CLG 3/4) e o êxito na primeira tentativa de intubação. Os desfechos secundários foram o tempo de intubação, uso de dispositivos adjuvantes para manuseio de vias aéreas, manobras auxiliares e complicações durante a IT. Resultados Sete estudos preencheram nossos critérios de inclusão, dos quais 4 eram Estudos Clínicos Randomizados (ECR) e 3 eram estudos de coorte. A meta‐análise foi conduzida combinando as estimativas de efeito para todos os 4 ECR incluídos (n = 632). Não foram encontradas diferenças entre as posições de rampa e olfativa para razão de chances de CLG 1/2, CLG 3/4, sucesso na primeira tentativa de intubação, tempo de intubação, uso de manobras auxiliares das vias aéreas e uso de dispositivos adjuvantes de vias aéreas, havendo evidência de alta heterogeneidade nos estudos. No entanto, a posição de rampa em pacientes cirúrgicos está associada com maior probabilidade de CLG 1/2 (OR = 2,05; 95% IC 1,26 a 3,32; p = 0,004) e menor probabilidade de CLG 3/4 (OR = 0,49; 95% IC 0,30 a 0,79; p = 0,004), com qualidade moderada de evidência. Conclusão Nossa meta‐análise demonstrou que a posição de rampa pode beneficiar pacientes cirúrgicos submetidos a IT, melhorando a visualização laríngea. ECR multicêntricos bem projetados com amostras grandes devem ser realizados para esclarecer ainda mais os benefícios da posição de rampa nos pacientes cirúrgicos e na unidade de terapia intensiva.