• Hiroshi Hoshijima, Koichi Maruyama, Takahiro Mihara, Boku Aiji Sato AS Department of Anesthesiology, Aichi Gakuin University School of Dentistry, 2-11 Suemori-dori, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi., Toshiya Shiga, and Hiroshi Nagasaka.
• Department of Anesthesiology, Saitama Medical University Hospital, Moroyama, Saitama.
• Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Nov 25; 99 (48): e23345.

BackgroundIt is presently unclear whether the hemodynamic response to intubation is less marked with indirect laryngoscopy using the GlideScope (GlideScope) than with direct laryngoscopy using the Macintosh laryngoscope. Thus, the aim of this study was to determine whether using the GlideScope lowers the hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation more than using the Macintosh laryngoscope.MethodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search of electronic databases for clinical trials comparing hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation. The primary aim was to determine whether the heart rate (HR) and mean blood pressure (MBP) 60 s after tracheal intubation with the GlideScope were lower than after intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope. We expressed pooled differences in HR and MBP between the devices as the weighted mean difference with 95% confidence interval and also performed trial sequential analysis (TSA). Second, we examined whether use of the GlideScope resulted in lower post-intubation hemodynamic responses at 120, 180, and 300 s compared with use of the Macintosh laryngoscope. For sensitivity analysis, we used a multivariate random effects model that accounted for within-study correlation of the longitudinal data.ResultsThe literature search identified 13 articles. HR and MBP at 60 seconds post-intubation was not significantly lower with the GlideScope than with the Macintosh (HR vs MBP: weighted mean difference = 0.22 vs 2.56; 95% confidence interval -3.43 to 3.88 vs -0.82 to 5.93; P = .90 vs 0.14; I = 77% vs 63%: Cochran Q, 52.7 vs 27.2). Use of the GlideScope was not associated with a significantly lower HR or MBP at 120, 180, or 300 s post-intubation. TSA indicated that the total sample size was over the futility boundary for HR and MBP. Sensitivity analysis indicated no significant association between use of the GlideScope and a lower HR or MBP at any measurement point.ConclusionsCompared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, the GlideScope did not lower the hemodynamic response after tracheal intubation. Sensitivity analysis results supported this finding, and the results of TSA suggest that the total sample size exceeded the TSA monitoring boundary for HR and MBP.

12 keywords...

hide…