Predictive performance of thyromental height for difficult laryngoscopies in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Desempenho preditivo da altura tireomentoniana para laringoscopias difíceis em adultos: uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise
Clístenes Crístian de Carvalho, Jayme Marques Santos Neto, Flávia Augusta de Orange
Abstract
Background
Thyromental height (TMH) was first reported as a great single test for prediction of difficult laryngoscopies, although further studies have shown variable estimates of its accuracy. We thus performed this meta-analysis to summarize the predictive values of TMH mainly for prediction of difficult laryngoscopies.
Methods
A search in PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS, and Scielo was conducted in June 2020. We included prospective cohorts fully reported with patients ≥ 16 years old, providing data on predictive values of TMH for prediction of either difficult laryngoscopies or difficult intubations. Diagnostic properties and association between TMH and Cormack and Lehanes’s classification by direct laryngoscopy were evaluated. A random-effects meta-analysis using hierarchical models was performed.
Results
Eight studies evaluating 2844 patients were included. All included studies had high risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability. There was significant heterogeneity among the studies. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and positive (LR+) and negative (LR-) likelihood ratios were as follows: DOR, 57.94 (95% CI: 18.19–184.55); LR+, 11.32 (95% CI: 4.28–29.92); and LR-, 0.23 (95% CI: 0.15–0.35). Summary sensitivity and specificity for studies with common threshold were 82.6 (95% CI: 74–88.8%) and 93.5 (95% CI: 79–98.2%), respectively. The estimated AUC was 81.1%.
Conclusion
TMH arises as a good predictor of difficult laryngoscopies in adult patients from diverse populations presenting better predictive values than most previously reported bedside tests. However, the high risk of bias throughout the studies may have skewed the results of the individual research as well as the summary points of the present meta-analysis.
Keywords
Resumo
Introdução
A altura tireomentoniana (ATM) foi relatada pela primeira vez como um ótimo teste único para prever laringoscopias difíceis, embora estudos posteriores tenham mostrado estimativas variáveis de sua precisão. Portanto, realizamos esta meta-análise para resumir os valores preditivos de ATM principalmente para predição de laringoscopias difíceis.
Métodos
Uma pesquisa no PubMed, EMBASE, LILACS e Scielo foi realizada em junho de 2020. Incluímos coortes prospectivas totalmente relatadas com pacientes ≥ 16 anos, fornecendo dados sobre valores preditivos de ATM para predição de laringoscopias difíceis ou intubações difíceis. As propriedades diagnósticas e a associação entre TMH e a classificação de Cormack e Lehanes por laringoscopia direta foram avaliadas. Uma meta-análise de efeitos aleatórios usando modelos hierárquicos foi realizada.
Resultados
Oito estudos avaliando 2.844 pacientes foram incluídos. Todos os estudos incluídos tinham alto risco de viés e baixa preocupação quanto à aplicabilidade. Houve heterogeneidade significativa entre os estudos. A razão de chances de diagnóstico combinada (DOR) e as razões de verossimilhança positiva (LR+) e negativa (LR-) foram as seguintes: DOR, 57,94 (95% IC: 18,19–184,55); LR+, 11,32 (95% IC: 4,28–29,92); e LR-, 0,23 (95% IC: 0,15–0,35). Sensibilidade e especificidade resumidas para estudos com limiar comum foram 82,6 (95% IC: 74–88,8%) e 93,5 (95% IC: 79–98,2%), respectivamente. A AUC estimada foi de 81,1%.
Conclusão
A ATM surge como um bom preditor de laringoscopias difíceis em pacientes adultos de diversas populações, apresentando melhores valores preditivos do que a maioria dos testes à beira do leito relatados anteriormente. No entanto, o alto risco de viés ao longo dos estudos pode ter distorcido os resultados da pesquisa individual, bem como os pontos resumidos da presente meta-análise.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C. Major complications of airway management in the UK: Results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: Anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:617–31.
2. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:827–48.
3. Higgs A, McGrath BA, Goddard C, et al. Guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120:323–52.
4. Roth D, Pace NL, Lee A, et al. Bedside tests for predicting difficult airways: an abridged Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic review. Anaesthesia. 2019;74:915–28.
5. Detsky ME, Jivraj N, Adhikari NK, et al. Will this patient be difficult to intubate? the rational clinical examination systematic review. JAMA. 2019;321:493–503.
6. Nørskov AK, Rosenstock CV, Wetterslev J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of anaesthesiologists’ prediction of difficult airway management in daily clinical practice: a cohort study of 188 064 patients registered in the Danish Anaesthesia Database. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:272–81.
7. Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, et al. Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway: An Updated Report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:251–70.
8. Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J, et al. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:632–42.
9. Law JA, Broemling N, Cooper RM, et al. The difficult airway with recommendations for management - Part 2 - Difficult airway. Can J Anesth. 2013;60:1119–38.
10. Pandit JJ, Heidegger T. Putting the ‘‘point’’ back into the ritual: a binary approach to difficult airway prediction. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:283–8.
11. Vannucci A, Cavallone LF. Bedside predictors of difficult intubation : a systematic review. Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82:69–83.
12. Hung O, Law JA, Morris I, et al. Airway assessment before intervention: What we know and what we do. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:1752–4.
13. Etezadi F, Ahangari A, Shokri H, et al. Thyromental height: A new clinical test for prediction of difficult laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg. 2013;117:1347–51.
14. Selvi O, Kahraman T, Senturk O, et al. Evaluation of the reliability of preoperative descriptive airway assessment tests in prediction of the Cormack-Lehane score: A prospective randomized clinical study. J Clin Anesth. 2017;36:21–6.
15. Jain N, Das S, Kanchi M. Thyromental height test for prediction of difficult laryngoscopy in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgical procedure. Ann Card Anaesth. 2017;20:207–11.
16. Nurullah M, Alam MS, Hossen M, et al. Prediction of difficult airway by thyromental height test-a comparison with modified mallampati test. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2018;17:455–61.
17. Rao KVN, Dhatchinamoorthi D, Nandhakumar A, et al. Validity of thyromental height test as a predictor of difficult laryngoscopy: A prospective evaluation comparing modified Mallampati score, interincisor gap, thyromental distance, neck circumference, and neck extension. Indian J Anaesth. 2018;62:603–8.
18. Yabuki S, Iwaoka S, Murakami M, et al. Reliability of the thyromental height test for prediction of difficult visualisation of the larynx: A prospective external validation. Indian J Anaesth. 2019;63:270–6.
19. Panjiar P, Kochhar A, Bhat K, et al. Comparison of thyromental height test with ratio of height to thyromental distance, thyromental distance, and modified Mallampati test in predicting difficult laryngoscopy: A prospective study. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2019;35:390–5.
20. Mostafa M, Saeed M, Hasanin A, et al. Accuracy of thyromental height test for predicting difficult intubation in elderly. J Anesth. 2020;34:217–23.
21. Macaskill P, Gatsonis C, Deeks JJ, et al. Analysing and presenting results. In: Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, Gatsonis C, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2010. Available at: http://srdta.cochrane.org/. (Accessed April 1, 2020).
22. Kim KW, Lee J, Choi SH, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: A practical review for clinical researchers–part I. General guidance and tips. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16:1175–87.
23. Lee J, Kim KW, Choi SH, et al. Systematic review and metaanalysis of studies evaluating diagnostic test accuracy: A practical review for clinical researchers–part II. Statistical methods of meta-analysis. Korean J Radiol. 2015;16:1188–96.
24. Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, et al. A systematic approach to searching: An efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106:531–41.
25. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.
26. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
27. McGrath TA, Alabousi M, Skidmore B, et al. Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: A systematic review. Syst Rev. 2017;6:194.
28. Mclnnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018;319:388–96.
29. Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME, et al. Quadas-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.
30. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3. Copenhagen, Denmark: The Nordic Cochrane Centre,. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2014.
31. R CoreTeam. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2013.
32. Shim SR, Kim S-J, Lee J. Diagnostic test accuracy: application and practice using R software. Epidemiol Health. 2019;41:e2019007.
33. Palczynski P, Bialka S, Misiolek H, et al. Thyromental height test as a new method for prediction of difficult intubation with double lumen tube. PLoS One. 2018;13:1–13.
34. Shiga T, Wajima Z, Inoue T, et al. Predicting difficult intubation in apparently normal patients: a meta-analysis of bedside screening test performance. Anesthesiology. 2005;103:429–37.
35. Nørskov AK. Pre-operative Airway Assessment – Experience Gained from a Multicentre Cluster Randomised Trial and the Danish Anaesthesia Database. [PhD thesis]. Copenhagen, Denmark: University of Copenhagen; 2015.
36. Fischer JE, Bachmann LM, Jaeschke R. A reader’s guide to the interpretation of diagnostic test properties: clinical examples of sepsis. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29:1043–51.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email