Videolaryngoscopy versus fiberoptic bronchoscope for awake intubation – A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

17Citations
Citations of this article
43Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background: Awake intubation with videolaryngoscopy (VL) is a novel method that is drawing more and more attention as an alternative to awake intubation with fiberoptic bronchoscope (FOB). This meta-analysis is designed to determine the performance of VL compared to the FOB for awake intubation. Methods: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Web of science were searched from database inception until October 30, 2017. Randomized controlled trials comparing VL and FOB for awake intubation were selected. The primary outcome was the overall success rate. Rev-Man 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible study. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence for all outcomes. Results: Six studies (446 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis did not show any difference in the overall success rate by using VL and FOB (relative risk [RR], 1.00; P=0.99; high-quality evidence). There was no heterogeneity among studies (p=0). Subgroup analyses showed no differences between two groups through nasal (RR, 1.00; P=1.00; high-quality evidence) and oral intubations (RR, 1.00; P=0.98; high-quality evidence). The intubation time was shorter by using VL than by using FOB (mean difference,-40.4 seconds; P<0.01; low-quality evidence). There were no differences between groups for other outcomes (P>0.05). Conclusion: For awake intubation, VL with a shorter intubation time is as effective and safe as FOB. VL may be a useful alternative to FOB.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jiang, J., Ma, D. X., Li, B., Wu, A. S., & Xue, F. S. (2018). Videolaryngoscopy versus fiberoptic bronchoscope for awake intubation – A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management, 14, 1955–1963. https://doi.org/10.2147/TCRM.S172783

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free