Awake Fiberoptic Intubation Protocols in the Operating Room for Anticipated Difficult Airway: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Awake fiberoptic intubation is one of the recommended strategies for surgical patients with anticipated difficult airway, especially when concurrent difficult ventilation is expected. We performed the first systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing different protocols for awake fiberoptic intubation in anticipated difficult airway, including studies investigating elective awake fiberoptic intubation for scheduled surgery; randomized controlled trials comparing different methods for performing awake fiberoptic intubation; and adult patients with anticipated difficult airway. We excluded studies in the nonoperating theater settings, randomized controlled trials comparing awake fiberoptic intubation with other techniques, and studies based on simulation. Primary outcomes were success rate and death; secondary outcomes were major adverse events. Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials evaluating 2045 patients and 4 areas were identified: premedication, local anesthesia, sedation, and ancillary techniques to facilitate awake fiberoptic intubation. Quality of evidence was moderate-low and based on small-sampled randomized controlled trials. Overall, 12 of 2045 intubation failures (0.59%) and 7 of 2045 severe adverse events (0.34%) occurred, with no permanent consequences or death. All evaluated methods to achieve local anesthesia performed similarly well. No differences were observed in success rate with different sedatives. Dexmedetomidine resulted in fewer desaturation episodes compared to propofol and opioids with or without midazolam (relative risk, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.95]; P = .03); occurrence of desaturation was similar with remifentanil versus propofol, while incidence of apnoea was lower with sevoflurane versus propofol (relative risk, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22-0.81]; P = .01). A high degree of efficacy and safety was observed with minimal differences among different protocols; dexmedetomidine might offer a better safety profile compared to other sedatives

Volatile Agents in Medical and Surgical Intensive Care Units: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Objective To comprehensively assess published randomized peer-reviewed studies related to volatile agents used for sedation in intensive care unit (ICU) settings, with the hypothesis that volatile agents could reduce time to extubation in adult patients. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Setting Intensive care units. Participants Critically ill patients. Interventions None. Measurements and Main Results The BioMedCentral, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register databases of clinical trials were searched systematically for studies on volatile agents used in the ICU setting. Articles were assessed by trained investigators, and divergences were resolved by consensus. Inclusion criteria included random allocation to treatment (volatile agents versus any intravenous comparator, with no restriction on dose or time of administration) in patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the ICU. Twelve studies with 934 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The use of halogenated agents reduced the time to extubation (standardized mean difference = \u20130.78 [\u20131.01 to \u20130.55] hours; p for effect<0.00001; p for heterogeneity = 0.18; I2 = 32% in 7 studies with 503 patients). Results for time to extubation were confirmed in all subanalyses (eg, medical and surgical patients) and sensitivity analyses. No differences in length of hospital stay, ICU stay, and mortality were recorded. Conclusions In this meta-analysis of randomized trials, volatile anesthetics reduced time to extubation in medical and surgical ICU patients. The results of this study should be confirmed by large and high-quality randomized controlled studies

The Fragility Index in peri-operative randomised trials that reported significant mortality effects in adults

More than one million peri-operative patients die each year. Thus, small improvements in peri-operative care may save thousands of lives. However, clinicians need confidence in the robustness of trial findings. The Fragility Index may complement frequentist analysis and provide quantitative assessment of robustness. We searched MEDLINE for peri-operative critical care randomised controlled trials that reported a statistically significant difference in mortality. We identified 46 trials with 37,347 participants. The median (IQR [range]) Fragility Index was 2 (1-3 [0-49]). Eleven trials had a Fragility Index of zero (changing from the Chi-square test to Fisher's exact test removed significance) and seven trials had a Fragility Index of 1. Only 23/46 trials had a Fragility Index greater than the number of patients lost to follow-up. There was a strong positive correlation between the Fragility Index and: the number of participants, R2  = 0.97, p < 0.0001; the number of centres that recruited participants, R2  = 0.96, p < 0.0001; the number of nations that recruited participants, R2  = 0.93, p < 0.0001; and the number of deaths, R2  = 0.97, p < 0.0001. As measured by the Fragility Index, the effect of peri-operative interventions on mortality in individual randomised controlled trials are not robust

Interventions affecting mortality in critically ill and perioperative patients: A systematic review of contemporary trials

Purpose Confounders in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting significant effects on mortality in critically ill patients using non-surgical techniques have not been systematically explored. We aimed to identify factors unrelated to the reported intervention that might have affected the findings and robustness of such trials. Methods We searched Pubmed/MEDLINE for all RCTs on any non-surgical interventions reporting an effect on unadjusted mortality in critically ill patients between 1/1/2000 and 1/12/2015. We assessed: the number needed to treat/harm (NNT or NNH), sample size, trial design (blinded/unblinded, single or multinational, single or multicenter (sRCT or mRCT)), intention to treat (ITT) analysis, and countries of origin. Results Almost half of RCTs were sRCTs. Median sample size was small, and 1/3 were not analyzed according to ITT principle. Lack of ITT analysis was associated with greater effect size (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.0028). Harm was more likely in mRCTs (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.002) and/or in blinded RCTs (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.003). Blinded RCTs had double sample size (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.007) and an increased NNT/NNH (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.002). Finally, mRCTs had higher NNT (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.005) and NNH (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.02), and harm was only detected in studies from Western countries (p&nbsp;=&nbsp;0.007). Conclusions These observations imply that major systematic biases exist and affect trial findings irrespective of the intervention being studied

Steroids and Survival in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Meta-analysis of 135 Randomized Trials

Objective: Corticosteroids have important effects on intermediate outcomes in critically ill patients, but their effect on survival is unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the effect on mortality of corticosteroids in critical and perioperative settings. Design: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Setting: PubMed, Embase, BioMed Central, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to February 1, 2018, for randomized trials comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care. Participants: Critically ill or surgical adult patients. Interventions: Corticosteroids compared with placebo or standard care. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 44,553 patients from 135 studies were included. Overall, mortality in the corticosteroid group and in the control group were similar (16% v 16%; p = 0.9). Subanalyses identified a beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival in patients with respiratory system diseases (9% v 13%; p &lt; 0.001) and bacterial meningitis (28% v 32%; p= 0.04), and a detrimental effect on survival in patients with traumatic brain injury (22% v 19%; p &lt; 0.001). No differences in mortality were found in patients with cardiac diseases (7% v 6%; p = 0.7), in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (2.8% v 3.2% p = 0.14), and when treatment duration or patient age were considered. Conclusions: This meta-analysis documents the safety of corticosteroids in the overall critically ill population with the notable exception of brain injury patients, a setting where the authors confirmed their detrimental effect on survival. A possible beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival was found among patients with respiratory diseases and in patients with bacterial meningitis

Awake Fiberoptic Intubation Protocols in the Operating Room for Anticipated Difficult Airway: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Awake fiberoptic intubation is one of the recommended strategies for surgical patients with anticipated difficult airway, especially when concurrent difficult ventilation is expected. We performed the first systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing different protocols for awake fiberoptic intubation in anticipated difficult airway, including studies investigating elective awake fiberoptic intubation for scheduled surgery; randomized controlled trials comparing different methods for performing awake fiberoptic intubation; and adult patients with anticipated difficult airway. We excluded studies in the nonoperating theater settings, randomized controlled trials comparing awake fiberoptic intubation with other techniques, and studies based on simulation. Primary outcomes were success rate and death; secondary outcomes were major adverse events. Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials evaluating 2045 patients and 4 areas were identified: premedication, local anesthesia, sedation, and ancillary techniques to facilitate awake fiberoptic intubation. Quality of evidence was moderate-low and based on small-sampled randomized controlled trials. Overall, 12 of 2045 intubation failures (0.59%) and 7 of 2045 severe adverse events (0.34%) occurred, with no permanent consequences or death. All evaluated methods to achieve local anesthesia performed similarly well. No differences were observed in success rate with different sedatives. Dexmedetomidine resulted in fewer desaturation episodes compared to propofol and opioids with or without midazolam (relative risk, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.95]; P =.03); occurrence of desaturation was similar with remifentanil versus propofol, while incidence of apnoea was lower with sevoflurane versus propofol (relative risk, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22-0.81]; P =.01). A high degree of efficacy and safety was observed with minimal differences among different protocols; dexmedetomidine might offer a better safety profile compared to other sedatives

Correction to: Tracheal intubation in critically ill patients: A comprehensive systematic review of randomized trials (Critical Care (2018) 22 (6) DOI: 10.1186/s13054-017-1927-3)

In the publication of this article [1], there was an error in a contributors Family Name. This has now been updated in the original article. \ua9 2019 The Author(s)