Dynamic versus standard bougies for tracheal intubation with direct or indirect laryngoscopy in simulated or real scenarios: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of dynamic versus standard bougies to achieve tracheal intubation. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar on 10 October 2023. We included clinical trials comparing both devices. The primary outcome was the first-attempt intubation success rate. The secondary outcome was the time required for tracheal intubation. RESULTS Eighteen studies were included. Dynamic bougies do not increase first-attempt success rate (RR 1.11; p = 0.06) or shorten tracheal intubation time (MD -0.30 sec; p = 0.84) in clinical trials in humans. In difficult airways, first-attempt success intubation rate was greater for dynamic bougies (RR 1.17; p = 0.002); Additionally, they reduced the time required for intubation (MD -4.80 sec; p = 0.001). First-attempt intubation success rate was higher (RR 1.15; p = 0.01) and time to achieve intubation was shorter when using Macintosh blades combined with dynamic bougies (MD -5.38 sec; p < 0.00001). Heterogeneity was high. CONCLUSION Dynamic bougies do not increase the overall first-pass success rate or shorten tracheal intubation time. However, dynamic bougies seem to improve first-attempt tracheal intubation rate in patients with difficult airways and in those intubated with a Macintosh blade. Further research is needed for definitive conclusions. REGISTRATION OF PROSPERO CRD42023472122.