Will This Patient Be Difficult to Intubate?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review
IMPORTANCE: Recognizing patients in whom endotracheal intubation is likely to be difficult can help alert physicians to the need for assistance from a clinician with airway training and having advanced airway management equipment available. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors and physical findings t...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association 2019-02, Vol.321 (5), p.493-503 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 503 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 493 |
| container_title | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association |
| container_volume | 321 |
| creator | Detsky, Michael E Jivraj, Naheed Adhikari, Neill K Friedrich, Jan O Pinto, Ruxandra Simel, David L Wijeysundera, Duminda N Scales, Damon C |
| description | IMPORTANCE: Recognizing patients in whom endotracheal intubation is likely to be difficult can help alert physicians to the need for assistance from a clinician with airway training and having advanced airway management equipment available. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors and physical findings that predict difficult intubation. DATA SOURCES: The databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1946 to June 2018 and from 1947 to June 2018, respectively, and the reference lists from the retrieved articles and previous reviews were searched for additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: Sixty-two studies with high (level 1-3) methodological quality that evaluated the accuracy of clinical findings for identifying difficult intubation were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently abstracted data. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate summary positive likelihood ratios across studies or univariate random-effects models when bivariate models failed to converge. RESULTS: Among the 62 high-quality studies involving 33 559 patients, 10% (95% CI, 8.2%-12%) of patients were difficult to intubate. The physical examination findings that best predicted a difficult intubation included a grade of class 3 on the upper lip bite test (lower incisors cannot extend to reach the upper lip; positive likelihood ratio, 14 [95% CI, 8.9-22]; specificity, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.97]), shorter hyomental distance (range of |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1001/jama.2018.21413 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2185568065</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ama_id>2724031</ama_id><sourcerecordid>2178561251</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a317t-7d4467d11843db3bdfd8d9318921e97f522d8d26edefe8793fec62830f8b1b7f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kE1P3DAQhq0KVLbQc6UeKku9cMnisePY4YLa5VNCAsFWHIOTjFWv8kFjh8K_x2EXDpXqi0fzPjPSPIR8ATYHxuBgZVoz5wz0nEMK4gOZgRQ6ETLXW2TGWK4Tlep0h3zyfsXiA6E-kh3BFAfB2Izc37mmocvfztNrExx2gf5EeuysddXYBBp6etGFsTQBjw4jh_QmYn1nGrpoXOeqWJw8mdZ1r216--wDtrGu6A0-Ovy7R7ataTx-3vy75NfpyXJxnlxenV0sflwmRoAKiarTNFM1gE5FXYqytrWucwE654C5spLz2OAZ1mhRq1xYrDKuBbO6hFJZsUv213sfhv7PiD4UrfMVNo3psB99wUFLmWmWyYh-_wdd9eMQT5oopWUGXEKkDtZUNfTeD2iLh8G1ZngugBWT_GKSX0zyi1f5ceLbZu9Ytli_82-2I_B1DUyDbylXmZAC_hfylMXwBahUj7U</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2178561251</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Will This Patient Be Difficult to Intubate?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Medical Association Journals</source><creator>Detsky, Michael E ; Jivraj, Naheed ; Adhikari, Neill K ; Friedrich, Jan O ; Pinto, Ruxandra ; Simel, David L ; Wijeysundera, Duminda N ; Scales, Damon C</creator><creatorcontrib>Detsky, Michael E ; Jivraj, Naheed ; Adhikari, Neill K ; Friedrich, Jan O ; Pinto, Ruxandra ; Simel, David L ; Wijeysundera, Duminda N ; Scales, Damon C</creatorcontrib><description>IMPORTANCE: Recognizing patients in whom endotracheal intubation is likely to be difficult can help alert physicians to the need for assistance from a clinician with airway training and having advanced airway management equipment available. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors and physical findings that predict difficult intubation. DATA SOURCES: The databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1946 to June 2018 and from 1947 to June 2018, respectively, and the reference lists from the retrieved articles and previous reviews were searched for additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: Sixty-two studies with high (level 1-3) methodological quality that evaluated the accuracy of clinical findings for identifying difficult intubation were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently abstracted data. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate summary positive likelihood ratios across studies or univariate random-effects models when bivariate models failed to converge. RESULTS: Among the 62 high-quality studies involving 33 559 patients, 10% (95% CI, 8.2%-12%) of patients were difficult to intubate. The physical examination findings that best predicted a difficult intubation included a grade of class 3 on the upper lip bite test (lower incisors cannot extend to reach the upper lip; positive likelihood ratio, 14 [95% CI, 8.9-22]; specificity, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.97]), shorter hyomental distance (range of <3-5.5 cm; positive likelihood ratio, 6.4 [95% CI, 4.1-10]; specificity, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.98]), retrognathia (mandible measuring <9 cm from the angle of the jaw to the tip of the chin or subjectively short; positive likelihood ratio, 6.0 [95% CI, 3.1-11]; specificity, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.90-1.0]), and a combination of physical findings based on the Wilson score (positive likelihood ratio, 9.1 [95% CI, 5.1-16]; specificity, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-0.98]). The widely used modified Mallampati score (≥3) had a positive likelihood ratio of 4.1 (95% CI, 3.0-5.6; specificity, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although several simple clinical findings are useful for predicting a higher likelihood of difficult endotracheal intubation, no clinical finding reliably excludes a difficult intubation. An abnormal upper lip bite test, which is easily assessed by clinicians, raises the probability of difficult intubation from 10% to greater than 60% for the average-risk patient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0098-7484</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-3598</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/jama.2018.21413</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30721300</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Airway Obstruction - diagnosis ; Bivariate analysis ; Data processing ; Humans ; Incisors ; Intubation ; Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects ; Jaw ; Jaw - anatomy & histology ; Likelihood Functions ; Likelihood ratio ; Lip ; Mandible ; Mathematical models ; Medical personnel ; Mouth - anatomy & histology ; Patients ; Pharynx - anatomy & histology ; Physicians ; Respiratory tract ; Risk analysis ; Risk Factors ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Systematic review</subject><ispartof>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2019-02, Vol.321 (5), p.493-503</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Medical Association Feb 5, 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a317t-7d4467d11843db3bdfd8d9318921e97f522d8d26edefe8793fec62830f8b1b7f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/10.1001/jama.2018.21413$$EPDF$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/10.1001/jama.2018.21413$$EHTML$$P50$$Gama$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>64,314,776,780,3327,27903,27904,76235,76238</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30721300$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Detsky, Michael E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jivraj, Naheed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adhikari, Neill K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friedrich, Jan O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinto, Ruxandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simel, David L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wijeysundera, Duminda N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scales, Damon C</creatorcontrib><title>Will This Patient Be Difficult to Intubate?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review</title><title>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</title><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><description>IMPORTANCE: Recognizing patients in whom endotracheal intubation is likely to be difficult can help alert physicians to the need for assistance from a clinician with airway training and having advanced airway management equipment available. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors and physical findings that predict difficult intubation. DATA SOURCES: The databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1946 to June 2018 and from 1947 to June 2018, respectively, and the reference lists from the retrieved articles and previous reviews were searched for additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: Sixty-two studies with high (level 1-3) methodological quality that evaluated the accuracy of clinical findings for identifying difficult intubation were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently abstracted data. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate summary positive likelihood ratios across studies or univariate random-effects models when bivariate models failed to converge. RESULTS: Among the 62 high-quality studies involving 33 559 patients, 10% (95% CI, 8.2%-12%) of patients were difficult to intubate. The physical examination findings that best predicted a difficult intubation included a grade of class 3 on the upper lip bite test (lower incisors cannot extend to reach the upper lip; positive likelihood ratio, 14 [95% CI, 8.9-22]; specificity, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.97]), shorter hyomental distance (range of <3-5.5 cm; positive likelihood ratio, 6.4 [95% CI, 4.1-10]; specificity, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.98]), retrognathia (mandible measuring <9 cm from the angle of the jaw to the tip of the chin or subjectively short; positive likelihood ratio, 6.0 [95% CI, 3.1-11]; specificity, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.90-1.0]), and a combination of physical findings based on the Wilson score (positive likelihood ratio, 9.1 [95% CI, 5.1-16]; specificity, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-0.98]). The widely used modified Mallampati score (≥3) had a positive likelihood ratio of 4.1 (95% CI, 3.0-5.6; specificity, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although several simple clinical findings are useful for predicting a higher likelihood of difficult endotracheal intubation, no clinical finding reliably excludes a difficult intubation. An abnormal upper lip bite test, which is easily assessed by clinicians, raises the probability of difficult intubation from 10% to greater than 60% for the average-risk patient.</description><subject>Airway Obstruction - diagnosis</subject><subject>Bivariate analysis</subject><subject>Data processing</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incisors</subject><subject>Intubation</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects</subject><subject>Jaw</subject><subject>Jaw - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Likelihood Functions</subject><subject>Likelihood ratio</subject><subject>Lip</subject><subject>Mandible</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Mouth - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharynx - anatomy & histology</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>Respiratory tract</subject><subject>Risk analysis</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><issn>0098-7484</issn><issn>1538-3598</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kE1P3DAQhq0KVLbQc6UeKku9cMnisePY4YLa5VNCAsFWHIOTjFWv8kFjh8K_x2EXDpXqi0fzPjPSPIR8ATYHxuBgZVoz5wz0nEMK4gOZgRQ6ETLXW2TGWK4Tlep0h3zyfsXiA6E-kh3BFAfB2Izc37mmocvfztNrExx2gf5EeuysddXYBBp6etGFsTQBjw4jh_QmYn1nGrpoXOeqWJw8mdZ1r216--wDtrGu6A0-Ovy7R7ataTx-3vy75NfpyXJxnlxenV0sflwmRoAKiarTNFM1gE5FXYqytrWucwE654C5spLz2OAZ1mhRq1xYrDKuBbO6hFJZsUv213sfhv7PiD4UrfMVNo3psB99wUFLmWmWyYh-_wdd9eMQT5oopWUGXEKkDtZUNfTeD2iLh8G1ZngugBWT_GKSX0zyi1f5ceLbZu9Ytli_82-2I_B1DUyDbylXmZAC_hfylMXwBahUj7U</recordid><startdate>20190205</startdate><enddate>20190205</enddate><creator>Detsky, Michael E</creator><creator>Jivraj, Naheed</creator><creator>Adhikari, Neill K</creator><creator>Friedrich, Jan O</creator><creator>Pinto, Ruxandra</creator><creator>Simel, David L</creator><creator>Wijeysundera, Duminda N</creator><creator>Scales, Damon C</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TS</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20190205</creationdate><title>Will This Patient Be Difficult to Intubate?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review</title><author>Detsky, Michael E ; Jivraj, Naheed ; Adhikari, Neill K ; Friedrich, Jan O ; Pinto, Ruxandra ; Simel, David L ; Wijeysundera, Duminda N ; Scales, Damon C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a317t-7d4467d11843db3bdfd8d9318921e97f522d8d26edefe8793fec62830f8b1b7f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Airway Obstruction - diagnosis</topic><topic>Bivariate analysis</topic><topic>Data processing</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incisors</topic><topic>Intubation</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects</topic><topic>Jaw</topic><topic>Jaw - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Likelihood Functions</topic><topic>Likelihood ratio</topic><topic>Lip</topic><topic>Mandible</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Mouth - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharynx - anatomy & histology</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>Respiratory tract</topic><topic>Risk analysis</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Detsky, Michael E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jivraj, Naheed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Adhikari, Neill K</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Friedrich, Jan O</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pinto, Ruxandra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Simel, David L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wijeysundera, Duminda N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scales, Damon C</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Physical Education Index</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Detsky, Michael E</au><au>Jivraj, Naheed</au><au>Adhikari, Neill K</au><au>Friedrich, Jan O</au><au>Pinto, Ruxandra</au><au>Simel, David L</au><au>Wijeysundera, Duminda N</au><au>Scales, Damon C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Will This Patient Be Difficult to Intubate?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review</atitle><jtitle>JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association</jtitle><addtitle>JAMA</addtitle><date>2019-02-05</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>321</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>493</spage><epage>503</epage><pages>493-503</pages><issn>0098-7484</issn><eissn>1538-3598</eissn><abstract>IMPORTANCE: Recognizing patients in whom endotracheal intubation is likely to be difficult can help alert physicians to the need for assistance from a clinician with airway training and having advanced airway management equipment available. OBJECTIVE: To identify risk factors and physical findings that predict difficult intubation. DATA SOURCES: The databases of MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 1946 to June 2018 and from 1947 to June 2018, respectively, and the reference lists from the retrieved articles and previous reviews were searched for additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: Sixty-two studies with high (level 1-3) methodological quality that evaluated the accuracy of clinical findings for identifying difficult intubation were reviewed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently abstracted data. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate summary positive likelihood ratios across studies or univariate random-effects models when bivariate models failed to converge. RESULTS: Among the 62 high-quality studies involving 33 559 patients, 10% (95% CI, 8.2%-12%) of patients were difficult to intubate. The physical examination findings that best predicted a difficult intubation included a grade of class 3 on the upper lip bite test (lower incisors cannot extend to reach the upper lip; positive likelihood ratio, 14 [95% CI, 8.9-22]; specificity, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.93-0.97]), shorter hyomental distance (range of <3-5.5 cm; positive likelihood ratio, 6.4 [95% CI, 4.1-10]; specificity, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.94-0.98]), retrognathia (mandible measuring <9 cm from the angle of the jaw to the tip of the chin or subjectively short; positive likelihood ratio, 6.0 [95% CI, 3.1-11]; specificity, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.90-1.0]), and a combination of physical findings based on the Wilson score (positive likelihood ratio, 9.1 [95% CI, 5.1-16]; specificity, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.90-0.98]). The widely used modified Mallampati score (≥3) had a positive likelihood ratio of 4.1 (95% CI, 3.0-5.6; specificity, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.81-0.91]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Although several simple clinical findings are useful for predicting a higher likelihood of difficult endotracheal intubation, no clinical finding reliably excludes a difficult intubation. An abnormal upper lip bite test, which is easily assessed by clinicians, raises the probability of difficult intubation from 10% to greater than 60% for the average-risk patient.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>30721300</pmid><doi>10.1001/jama.2018.21413</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0098-7484 |
| ispartof | JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association, 2019-02, Vol.321 (5), p.493-503 |
| issn | 0098-7484 1538-3598 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2185568065 |
| source | MEDLINE; American Medical Association Journals |
| subjects | Airway Obstruction - diagnosis Bivariate analysis Data processing Humans Incisors Intubation Intubation, Intratracheal - adverse effects Jaw Jaw - anatomy & histology Likelihood Functions Likelihood ratio Lip Mandible Mathematical models Medical personnel Mouth - anatomy & histology Patients Pharynx - anatomy & histology Physicians Respiratory tract Risk analysis Risk Factors Sensitivity and Specificity Systematic review |
| title | Will This Patient Be Difficult to Intubate?: The Rational Clinical Examination Systematic Review |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-27T16%3A02%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Will%20This%20Patient%20Be%20Difficult%20to%20Intubate?:%20The%20Rational%20Clinical%20Examination%20Systematic%20Review&rft.jtitle=JAMA%20:%20the%20journal%20of%20the%20American%20Medical%20Association&rft.au=Detsky,%20Michael%20E&rft.date=2019-02-05&rft.volume=321&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=493&rft.epage=503&rft.pages=493-503&rft.issn=0098-7484&rft.eissn=1538-3598&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/jama.2018.21413&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2178561251%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2178561251&rft_id=info:pmid/30721300&rft_ama_id=2724031&rfr_iscdi=true |