Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33235101›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2020

Use of the GlideScope does not lower the hemodynamic response to tracheal intubation more than the Macintosh laryngoscope: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Hiroshi Hoshijima, Koichi Maruyama, Takahiro Mihara, Aiji Sato Boku, Toshiya Shiga, Hiroshi Nagasaka

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05694585 (Effect of Continuous Infusion of Esmolol on Perioperative Stress Reaction in Patients Undergoing Airway Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 26% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05694585 phase4unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Continuous Infusion of Esmolol on Perioperative Stress Reaction in Patients Undergoing Airway Intervention

TypeinterventionalSponsorXiumei SongRan2023 to 2023Enrolled46ConditionsEsmolol, Stress Reaction, Airway Obstruction, CatecholamineArmsEsmolol, saline
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Hiroshi HoshijimaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Saitama Medical University Hospital, Moroyama, Saitama.
Koichi MaruyamaDepartments of Anesthesiology, University Hospital Mizonokuchi, Teikyo University School of Medicine, Kawasaki.
Takahiro MiharaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Yokohama City University Graduate School of Medicine, Yokohama, Kanagawa.
Aiji Sato BokuDepartment of Anesthesiology, Aichi Gakuin University School of Dentistry, 2-11 Suemori-dori, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya, Aichi.
Toshiya ShigaDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, International University of Health and Welfare, School of Medicine, Ichikawa, Chiba, Japan.
Hiroshi NagasakaDepartment of Anesthesiology, Saitama Medical University Hospital, Moroyama, Saitama.
Aichi Gakuin University · JPSaitama Medical University Hospital · JPTeikyo University · JPTohoku University · JPYokohama City University · JP

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

LaryngoscopesHemodynamicsHumansIntubation, IntratrachealRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID33235101
PMCPMC7710211
OpenAlexW3109356296

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.