Comparison of the modified Mallampati classification score versus the best visible Mallampati score in the prediction of difficult tracheal intubation: a single-centre prospective observational study.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-15 DOI:10.1007/s12630-024-02815-0
Jean-Luc Hanouz, Valentin Lefrançois, Mariam Boutros, Anne Lise Fiant, Thérèse Simonet, Clément Buléon
{"title":"Comparison of the modified Mallampati classification score versus the best visible Mallampati score in the prediction of difficult tracheal intubation: a single-centre prospective observational study.","authors":"Jean-Luc Hanouz, Valentin Lefrançois, Mariam Boutros, Anne Lise Fiant, Thérèse Simonet, Clément Buléon","doi":"10.1007/s12630-024-02815-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The modified Mallampati classification is part of the preoperative airway risk assessment. Inconsistency in the way it is examined may contribute to heterogeneity in its diagnostic performance. The best visible Mallampati score could reduce interobserver heterogeneity but its diagnostic characteristics remain unknown.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>During preoperative anesthesia consultation of adult patients with a senior anesthesiologist, we compared the modified Mallampati classification score vs the best visible Mallampati score using cervical extension, tongue in, and phonation. The primary outcome was the diagnostic characteristic of the modified Mallampati classification score vs the best visible Mallampati score as predictors of difficult orotracheal intubation (more than two direct laryngoscopies or need for an alternate device). We performed a multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of difficult orotracheal intubation in the tested cohort.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Difficult orotracheal intubation occurred in 77/3,243 (2.4%) patients. A best visible Mallampati score was obtained in 1,596 (49.2%) patients. Sensitivity and specificity of the modified Mallampati classification score for predicting difficult orotracheal intubation were 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.66) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.71), respectively. By comparison, the best visible Mallampati score was less sensitive (difference, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.30; P < 0.001) but more specific (difference, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.22 to -0.25; P < 0.001). In patients with difficult orotracheal intubation, 53% were incorrectly reclassified as low risk by the best visible Mallampati score.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared with the modified Mallampati classification score, the best visible Mallampati score decreased sensitivity for predicting difficult orotracheal intubation and falsely classified half of the patients with difficult orotracheal intubation. Taking the risks associated with difficult airways into account, our findings indicate that a careful examination of the modified Mallampati classification is required during the global preoperative airway examination.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02788253 ); 9 February 2016.</p>","PeriodicalId":56145,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","volume":" ","pages":"1353-1362"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02815-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: The modified Mallampati classification is part of the preoperative airway risk assessment. Inconsistency in the way it is examined may contribute to heterogeneity in its diagnostic performance. The best visible Mallampati score could reduce interobserver heterogeneity but its diagnostic characteristics remain unknown.

Methods: During preoperative anesthesia consultation of adult patients with a senior anesthesiologist, we compared the modified Mallampati classification score vs the best visible Mallampati score using cervical extension, tongue in, and phonation. The primary outcome was the diagnostic characteristic of the modified Mallampati classification score vs the best visible Mallampati score as predictors of difficult orotracheal intubation (more than two direct laryngoscopies or need for an alternate device). We performed a multivariable analysis to identify independent predictors of difficult orotracheal intubation in the tested cohort.

Results: Difficult orotracheal intubation occurred in 77/3,243 (2.4%) patients. A best visible Mallampati score was obtained in 1,596 (49.2%) patients. Sensitivity and specificity of the modified Mallampati classification score for predicting difficult orotracheal intubation were 0.56 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.44 to 0.66) and 0.69 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.71), respectively. By comparison, the best visible Mallampati score was less sensitive (difference, -0.30; 95% CI, -0.19 to -0.30; P < 0.001) but more specific (difference, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.22 to -0.25; P < 0.001). In patients with difficult orotracheal intubation, 53% were incorrectly reclassified as low risk by the best visible Mallampati score.

Conclusion: Compared with the modified Mallampati classification score, the best visible Mallampati score decreased sensitivity for predicting difficult orotracheal intubation and falsely classified half of the patients with difficult orotracheal intubation. Taking the risks associated with difficult airways into account, our findings indicate that a careful examination of the modified Mallampati classification is required during the global preoperative airway examination.

Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02788253 ); 9 February 2016.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在预测气管插管困难方面,比较改良马兰帕蒂分类评分与最佳可见马兰帕蒂评分:一项单中心前瞻性观察研究。
目的:改良马兰帕蒂分类法是术前气道风险评估的一部分。检查方法的不一致可能会导致其诊断效果的异质性。最佳可见 Mallampati 评分可减少观察者间的异质性,但其诊断特征仍不清楚:方法:在资深麻醉师对成年患者进行术前麻醉会诊时,我们比较了改良的 Mallampati 分类评分与使用颈椎伸展、伸舌和发音的最佳可见 Mallampati 评分。主要结果是改良马兰帕蒂分类评分与最佳可见马兰帕蒂评分的诊断特征,作为困难气管插管(超过两次直接喉镜检查或需要备用装置)的预测指标。我们进行了一项多变量分析,以确定受试者队列中气管插管困难的独立预测因素:结果:77/3,243(2.4%)名患者发生了气管插管困难。1,596名患者(49.2%)获得了最佳可见Mallampati评分。改良马兰帕蒂分类评分预测困难气管插管的灵敏度和特异度分别为 0.56(95% 置信区间 [CI],0.44 至 0.66)和 0.69(95% 置信区间,0.68 至 0.71)。相比之下,最佳可见 Mallampati 评分的灵敏度较低(差值为-0.30;95% CI 为-0.19 至-0.30;P 结论:与改良 Mallampati 评分相比,最佳可见 Mallampati 评分的灵敏度较高:与改良的 Mallampati 分级相比,最佳可见 Mallampati 评分降低了预测困难气管插管的灵敏度,并错误地将一半的困难气管插管患者归类。考虑到困难气道的相关风险,我们的研究结果表明,在术前气道全面检查中需要仔细检查改良的 Mallampati 分级:研究注册:ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02788253 );2016 年 2 月 9 日。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
161
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal) is owned by the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society and is published by Springer Science + Business Media, LLM (New York). From the first year of publication in 1954, the international exposure of the Journal has broadened considerably, with articles now received from over 50 countries. The Journal is published monthly, and has an impact Factor (mean journal citation frequency) of 2.127 (in 2012). Article types consist of invited editorials, reports of original investigations (clinical and basic sciences articles), case reports/case series, review articles, systematic reviews, accredited continuing professional development (CPD) modules, and Letters to the Editor. The editorial content, according to the mission statement, spans the fields of anesthesia, acute and chronic pain, perioperative medicine and critical care. In addition, the Journal publishes practice guidelines and standards articles relevant to clinicians. Articles are published either in English or in French, according to the language of submission.
期刊最新文献
Methods for determining optimal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation: a scoping review. Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for postoperative recovery after cardiac surgery: a historical cohort study. Important features of hospitals, intensive care unit waiting rooms, and patient care rooms: perspectives of intensive care unit visitors. Squats, spinach, and soul: considering disparities in prehabilitation medicine before programmatic implementation. The implementation of preoperative optimization in British Columbia: a quality improvement initiative.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1