Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children
Abstract To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different intubation devices on intubation outcomes in pediatric intubation. We identified relevant studies from previous meta-analyses and literature retrieval in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the first-pass...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Nature Portfolio
2023-10-01
|
| Series: | Scientific Reports |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45173-5 |
| _version_ | 1797636906005037056 |
|---|---|
| author | Yu Ming Shujuan Chu Kai Yang Zhao Zhang Zhouyang Wu |
| author_facet | Yu Ming Shujuan Chu Kai Yang Zhao Zhang Zhouyang Wu |
| author_sort | Yu Ming |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different intubation devices on intubation outcomes in pediatric intubation. We identified relevant studies from previous meta-analyses and literature retrieval in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the first-pass success (FPS), and the secondary outcome included the time to intubation (TTI) and the risk of local complications (LC). Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0. Twenty-three randomized comparative trials (RCTs) including 12 devices were included. Compared with Macintosh, Airtraq (odds ratio [OR] = 13.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.68 to 36.38), Miller (OR = 4.77, 95%CI = 1.32 to 17.22), Glidescope (OR = 2.76, 95%CrI = 1.60 to 4.75) and McGrath (OR = 4.61, 95%CI = 1.18 to 17.99) obtained higher PFS. Meanwhile, Airtraq was superior to Glidescope (OR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.07 to 0.65) for PFS. For TTI, Canada was superior to other intubation devices, as well as CMAC was superior to TruViewEVO2, Glidescope, and StorzDCI. Airtraq lowered the risk of LC compared with Macintosh and Pentax but there was no statistical difference between Airtraq and KingVision. Airtraq may be the optimal option for FPS, Canada for TTI, and KingVision for LC in pediatric intubation. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T12:41:50Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-86a08662e8d748fea3316c5c80bb644b |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2045-2322 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T12:41:50Z |
| publishDate | 2023-10-01 |
| publisher | Nature Portfolio |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Scientific Reports |
| spelling | doaj.art-86a08662e8d748fea3316c5c80bb644b2023-11-05T12:15:59ZengNature PortfolioScientific Reports2045-23222023-10-0113111210.1038/s41598-023-45173-5Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in childrenYu Ming0Shujuan Chu1Kai Yang2Zhao Zhang3Zhouyang Wu4College of Medicine and Health Science, Wuhan Polytechnic UniversityDepartment of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and TechnologyAbstract To evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of different intubation devices on intubation outcomes in pediatric intubation. We identified relevant studies from previous meta-analyses and literature retrieval in PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library. The primary outcome was the first-pass success (FPS), and the secondary outcome included the time to intubation (TTI) and the risk of local complications (LC). Network meta-analysis was performed using STATA 14.0. Twenty-three randomized comparative trials (RCTs) including 12 devices were included. Compared with Macintosh, Airtraq (odds ratio [OR] = 13.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.68 to 36.38), Miller (OR = 4.77, 95%CI = 1.32 to 17.22), Glidescope (OR = 2.76, 95%CrI = 1.60 to 4.75) and McGrath (OR = 4.61, 95%CI = 1.18 to 17.99) obtained higher PFS. Meanwhile, Airtraq was superior to Glidescope (OR = 0.21, 95%CI = 0.07 to 0.65) for PFS. For TTI, Canada was superior to other intubation devices, as well as CMAC was superior to TruViewEVO2, Glidescope, and StorzDCI. Airtraq lowered the risk of LC compared with Macintosh and Pentax but there was no statistical difference between Airtraq and KingVision. Airtraq may be the optimal option for FPS, Canada for TTI, and KingVision for LC in pediatric intubation.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45173-5 |
| spellingShingle | Yu Ming Shujuan Chu Kai Yang Zhao Zhang Zhouyang Wu Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children Scientific Reports |
| title | Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children |
| title_full | Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children |
| title_fullStr | Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children |
| title_full_unstemmed | Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children |
| title_short | Network meta-analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children |
| title_sort | network meta analysis of comparative efficacy and safety of intubation devices in children |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-45173-5 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT yuming networkmetaanalysisofcomparativeefficacyandsafetyofintubationdevicesinchildren AT shujuanchu networkmetaanalysisofcomparativeefficacyandsafetyofintubationdevicesinchildren AT kaiyang networkmetaanalysisofcomparativeefficacyandsafetyofintubationdevicesinchildren AT zhaozhang networkmetaanalysisofcomparativeefficacyandsafetyofintubationdevicesinchildren AT zhouyangwu networkmetaanalysisofcomparativeefficacyandsafetyofintubationdevicesinchildren |