Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for neonates.

IF 8.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Pub Date : 2020-09-23 DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD013736
Vedanta Dariya, L. Moresco, M. Bruschettini, L. Brion
{"title":"Cuffed versus uncuffed endotracheal tubes for neonates.","authors":"Vedanta Dariya, L. Moresco, M. Bruschettini, L. Brion","doi":"10.1002/14651858.CD013736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nEndotracheal intubation is a commonly performed procedure in neonates, the risks of which are well-described. Some endotracheal tubes (ETT) are equipped with a cuff that can be inflated after insertion of the ETT in the airway to limit leak or aspiration. Cuffed ETTs have been shown in larger children and adults to reduce gas leak around the ETT, ETT exchange, accidental extubation, and exposure of healthcare workers to anesthetic gas during surgery. With improved understanding of neonatal airway anatomy and the widespread use of cuffed ETTs by anesthesiologists, the use of cuffed tubes is increasing in neonates.\n\n\nOBJECTIVES\nTo assess the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated or non-inflated) compared to uncuffed ETTs for respiratory support in neonates.\n\n\nSEARCH METHODS\nWe searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and CINAHL on 20 August 2021; we also searched trial registers and checked reference lists to identify additional studies.\n\n\nSELECTION CRITERIA\nWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-randomized trials comparing cuffed (inflated and non-inflated) versus uncuffed ETTs in newborns. We sought to compare 1. inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; 2. non-inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; and 3. inflated, cuffed versus non-inflated, cuffed ETT.\n\n\nDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS\nWe used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.\n\n\nMAIN RESULTS\nWe identified one eligible RCT for inclusion that compared the use of cuffed (inflated if ETT leak greater than 20% with cuff pressure 20 cm H2O or less) versus uncuffed ETT. The author provided a spreadsheet with individual data. Among 76 infants in the original manuscript, 69 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this Cochrane Review. We found possible bias due to lack of blinding and other bias. We are very uncertain about frequency of postextubation stridor, because the confidence intervals (CI) of the risk ratio (RR) were very wide (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.25; risk difference (RD) 0.03, -0.11 to 0.18; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate was diagnosed with postextubation subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy was not available to confirm the clinical diagnosis. We are very uncertain about reintubation for stridor or subglottic stenosis because the CIs of the RR were very wide (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.49; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate had surgical intervention (e.g. endoscopic balloon dilation, cricoid split, tracheostomy) for stridor or subglottic stenosis (1 study, 69 participants). Neonates randomized to cuffed ETT may be less likely to have a reintubation for any reason (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; RD -0.39, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 3, 95% CI 2 to 5; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about accidental extubation because the CIs of the RR were wide (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.46; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization because the CIs of the RR were extremely wide (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 58.39; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is one ongoing trial. We classified two studies as awaiting classification because outcome data were not reported separately for newborns and older infants.\n\n\nAUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS\nEvidence for comparing cuffed versus uncuffed ETTs in neonates is limited by a small number of babies in a single RCT with possible bias. There is very low certainty evidence for all outcomes of this review. CIs of the estimate for postextubation stridor were wide. No neonate had clinical evidence for subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy results were not available to assess the anatomy. Additional RCTs are necessary to evaluate the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated and non-inflated) in the neonatal population. These studies must include neonates and be conducted both for short-term use (in the setting of the operating room) and chronic use (in the setting of chronic lung disease) of cuffed ETTs.","PeriodicalId":10473,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","volume":"131 1","pages":"CD013736"},"PeriodicalIF":8.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013736","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

BACKGROUND Endotracheal intubation is a commonly performed procedure in neonates, the risks of which are well-described. Some endotracheal tubes (ETT) are equipped with a cuff that can be inflated after insertion of the ETT in the airway to limit leak or aspiration. Cuffed ETTs have been shown in larger children and adults to reduce gas leak around the ETT, ETT exchange, accidental extubation, and exposure of healthcare workers to anesthetic gas during surgery. With improved understanding of neonatal airway anatomy and the widespread use of cuffed ETTs by anesthesiologists, the use of cuffed tubes is increasing in neonates. OBJECTIVES To assess the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated or non-inflated) compared to uncuffed ETTs for respiratory support in neonates. SEARCH METHODS We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and CINAHL on 20 August 2021; we also searched trial registers and checked reference lists to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-randomized trials comparing cuffed (inflated and non-inflated) versus uncuffed ETTs in newborns. We sought to compare 1. inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; 2. non-inflated, cuffed versus uncuffed ETT; and 3. inflated, cuffed versus non-inflated, cuffed ETT. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We used the standard methods of Cochrane Neonatal. Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by the search strategy for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS We identified one eligible RCT for inclusion that compared the use of cuffed (inflated if ETT leak greater than 20% with cuff pressure 20 cm H2O or less) versus uncuffed ETT. The author provided a spreadsheet with individual data. Among 76 infants in the original manuscript, 69 met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this Cochrane Review. We found possible bias due to lack of blinding and other bias. We are very uncertain about frequency of postextubation stridor, because the confidence intervals (CI) of the risk ratio (RR) were very wide (RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.25; risk difference (RD) 0.03, -0.11 to 0.18; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate was diagnosed with postextubation subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy was not available to confirm the clinical diagnosis. We are very uncertain about reintubation for stridor or subglottic stenosis because the CIs of the RR were very wide (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.49; RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.05; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No neonate had surgical intervention (e.g. endoscopic balloon dilation, cricoid split, tracheostomy) for stridor or subglottic stenosis (1 study, 69 participants). Neonates randomized to cuffed ETT may be less likely to have a reintubation for any reason (RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.45; RD -0.39, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.21; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome 3, 95% CI 2 to 5; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about accidental extubation because the CIs of the RR were wide (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.12 to 5.46; RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about all-cause mortality during initial hospitalization because the CIs of the RR were extremely wide (RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.10 to 58.39; RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.10; 1 study, 69 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There is one ongoing trial. We classified two studies as awaiting classification because outcome data were not reported separately for newborns and older infants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Evidence for comparing cuffed versus uncuffed ETTs in neonates is limited by a small number of babies in a single RCT with possible bias. There is very low certainty evidence for all outcomes of this review. CIs of the estimate for postextubation stridor were wide. No neonate had clinical evidence for subglottic stenosis; however, endoscopy results were not available to assess the anatomy. Additional RCTs are necessary to evaluate the benefits and harms of cuffed ETTs (inflated and non-inflated) in the neonatal population. These studies must include neonates and be conducted both for short-term use (in the setting of the operating room) and chronic use (in the setting of chronic lung disease) of cuffed ETTs.
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
新生儿带箍气管插管与不带箍气管插管的对比。
背景:气管插管是新生儿常用的手术,其风险已被充分描述。一些气管内管(ETT)配有袖带,可在ETT插入气道后充气,以限制泄漏或误吸。在较大的儿童和成人中,已显示带套的气管插管可减少气管插管周围的气体泄漏、气管插管交换、意外拔管以及手术期间医护人员暴露于麻醉气体中。随着对新生儿气道解剖的了解的提高和麻醉医师广泛使用带袖口气管插管,在新生儿中使用带袖口气管插管的情况越来越多。目的:评价带袖带的气管插管(充气或非充气)与未带袖带的气管插管在新生儿呼吸支持中的利弊。我们于2021年8月20日检索了CENTRAL、PubMed和CINAHL;我们还检索了试验注册表和参考文献列表,以确定其他研究。选择标准:我们包括随机对照试验(rct)、准随机对照试验和集群随机试验,比较新生儿中带箍(充气和非充气)和未带箍的心房导管。我们试图比较。充气、带袖口与未带袖口的ETT;2. 非充气、带袖口与未带袖口的ETT;和3。充气的,袖口的和非充气的,袖口的ETT。资料收集与分析我们采用Cochrane新生儿的标准方法。两位综述作者独立评估了通过纳入、提取数据和评估偏倚风险的搜索策略确定的研究。我们使用GRADE方法来评估证据的确定性。我们确定了一项符合条件的随机对照试验,比较了袖带式(如果袖带压力≤20cm H2O,渗漏大于20%,则充气)和非袖带式ETT的使用。作者提供了一个包含个人数据的电子表格。在原稿中的76名婴儿中,有69名符合Cochrane综述的纳入和排除标准。由于缺乏盲法和其他偏倚,我们发现可能存在偏倚。我们对拔管后喘鸣的频率非常不确定,因为风险比(RR)的置信区间(CI)非常宽(RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.35 ~ 5.25;风险差(RD)为0.03,-0.11 ~ 0.18;1项研究,69名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。没有新生儿被诊断为拔管后声门下狭窄;然而,内窥镜检查无法证实临床诊断。我们对喘鸣或声门下狭窄的再插管非常不确定,因为RR的CI非常宽(RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.01至6.49;RD -0.03, 95% CI -0.11 ~ 0.05;1项研究,69名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。没有新生儿因喘鸣或声门下狭窄而进行手术干预(如内窥镜球囊扩张、环状环切开、气管造口术)(1项研究,69名参与者)。随机分配到套管插管组的新生儿可能不太可能因任何原因再次插管(RR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01 ~ 0.45;RD -0.39, 95% CI -0.57 ~ -0.21;获得额外有益结果所需治疗的人数3,95% CI 2 ~ 5;1项研究,69名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。我们对意外拔管非常不确定,因为RR的CI很宽(RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.12至5.46;RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.12 ~ 0.10;1项研究,69名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。我们对最初住院期间的全因死亡率非常不确定,因为RR的CI非常宽(RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.10至58.39;RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.05 ~ 0.10;1项研究,69名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。有一个正在进行的试验。我们将两项研究分类为等待分类,因为没有分别报道新生儿和较大婴儿的结局数据。作者的结论:在一项单独的随机对照试验中,由于婴儿数量较少,有可能存在偏倚,因此比较新生儿中带手铐或未带手铐的鼻塞的证据有限。本综述所有结果的确定性证据都很低。拔管后喘鸣估计的ci值很宽。没有新生儿有声门下狭窄的临床证据;然而,内窥镜检查结果无法评估解剖结构。需要额外的随机对照试验来评估新生儿人群中夹套式肺动脉栓塞(充气和非充气)的利弊。这些研究必须包括新生儿,并进行短期使用(在手术室环境中)和长期使用(在慢性肺部疾病的环境中)的袖口栓塞治疗。
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
10.60
自引率
2.40%
发文量
173
审稿时长
1-2 weeks
期刊介绍: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) stands as the premier database for systematic reviews in healthcare. It comprises Cochrane Reviews, along with protocols for these reviews, editorials, and supplements. Owned and operated by Cochrane, a worldwide independent network of healthcare stakeholders, the CDSR (ISSN 1469-493X) encompasses a broad spectrum of health-related topics, including health services.
期刊最新文献
Exercise for multidirectional instability of the shoulder. Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas. Screening for osteoporosis with bone densitometry in adults with risk factors for fractures. Financial arrangements for rehabilitation services in health systems: an overview of systematic reviews. Intravenous chemotherapy versus intra-arterial chemotherapy for retinoblastoma.
×
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:604180095
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