Airway management research: a systematic review

Anaesthesia

Volumn 74, Issue 2, 2019, Pages 225-236

  Ahmad, I ^a,b   Onwochei, D N ^a   Muldoon, S ^a   Keane, O ^a   El Boghdadly, K ^a,b  

^a GUY'S AND ST THOMAS' NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

^b KING'S COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

airway management; airway research; bibliometrics; difficult airway

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL MODEL; CADAVER; CLINICAL OUTCOME; CLINICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); ELECTIVE SURGERY; ENDOTRACHEAL INTUBATION; HUMAN; NONHUMAN; PATIENT SAFETY; PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESPIRATION CONTROL; REVIEW; SURGICAL PATIENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; PROCEDURES;

AIRWAY MANAGEMENT; HUMANS; INTUBATION, INTRATRACHEAL;

EID: 85056766191     PISSN: 00032409     EISSN: 13652044     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/anae.14471     Document Type: Review

References (45)

1. Pandit JJ, Popat MT, Cook TM, et al. The Difficult Airway Society “ADEPT” Guidance on selecting airway devices: the basis of a strategy for equipment evaluation. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 726–37.
2. Ward PA, Irwin MG. Man vs. manikin revisited – the ethical boundaries of simulating difficult airways in patients. Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 1391–407.
3. Behringer EC, Kristensen MS. Evidence for benefit vs novelty in new intubation equipment. Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 57–64.
4. Cook TM, Duggan LV, Kristensen MS. In search of consensus on ethics in airway research. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 1175–9.
5. Irwin MG, Ward PA. Consensus on ethics in airway research – a reply. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 1278–9.
6. Pandit JJ, Handy JM. Science, Anaesthesia and animal studies: what is “evidence”? Anaesthesia 2010; 65: 223–6.
7. Gatward JJ, Thomas MJC, Nolan JP, Cook TM. Effect of chest compressions on the time taken to insert airway devices in a manikin. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2008; 100: 351–6.
8. Mingo O, Suaris P, Charman S, Ferguson C, Patel A. The effect of temperature on bougies: a photographic and manikin study. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 1135–8.
9. Asai T. Tracheal intubation with restricted access: a randomised comparison of the Pentax-Airway Scope and Macintosh laryngoscope in a manikin. Anaesthesia 2009; 64: 1114–17.
10. Brinker A, Stratling WM, Schumacher J. Evaluation of bag-valve-mask ventilation in simulated toxic environments. Anaesthesia 2008; 63: 1234–7.
11. Gupta A, Thukral S, Lakra A, Kumar S. A comparison between left molar direct laryngoscopy and the use of a Bonfils intubation fibrescope for tracheal intubation in a simulated difficult airway. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 2015; 62: 609–17.
12. Jepsen CH, Gatke MR, Thogersen B, et al. Tracheal intubation with a flexible fibreoptic scope or the McGrath videolaryngoscope in simulated difficult airway scenarios: a randomised controlled manikin study. European Journal of Anaesthesiology 2014; 31: 131–6.
13. Thierbach A, Piepho T, Göbler S, et al. Comparative study of three different supraglottic airway devices in simulated difficult airway situations. Minerva Anestesiologica 2015; 81: 1311–17.
14. Kleine-Brueggeney M, Greif R, Urwyler N, Wirthmüller B, Theiler L. The performance of rigid scopes for tracheal intubation: a randomised, controlled trial in patients with a simulated difficult airway. Anaesthesia 2016; 71: 1456–63.
15. Ahmad I, El-Boghdadly K. Evidence-based practice or evidence based on practice: time for airway management research strategy. Anaesthesia 2019; 74:247
16. Howell SJ, Pandit JJ, Rowbotham DJ. National institute of academic anaesthesia research priority setting exercise. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2012; 108: 42–52.
17. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, John PA. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. British Medical Journal 2009; 339: b2700.
18. Grimes DA, Schulz KF. An overview of clinical research: the lay of the land. Lancet 2002; 359: 57–61.
19. El-Boghdadly K, Docherty AB, Klein AA. Analysis of the distribution and scholarly output from national institute of academic anaesthesia (NIAA) research grants. Anaesthesia 2018; 73: 679–91.
20. Rai MR, Popat MT. Evaluation of airway equipment: man or manikin? Anaesthesia 2011; 66: 1–3.
21. Grierson LEM. Information processing, specificity of practice, and the transfer of learning: considerations for reconsidering fidelity. Advances in Health Sciences Education 2014; 19: 281–9.
22. Harvey R, Foulds L, Housden T, et al. The impact of didactic read-aloud action cards on the performance of cannula cricothyroidotomy in a simulated “can't intubate can't oxygenate” scenario. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 343–9.
23. Cook T, Woodall N, Frerk C. 4th national audit project of the royal college of anaesthetists and the difficult airway society. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2011; 106: 617–31.
24. Cattano D, Killoran PV, Iannucci D, et al. Anticipation of the difficult airway: preoperative airway assessment, an educational and quality improvement tool. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2013; 111: 276–85.
25. Shiga T, Wajima Z, Inoue T, Sakamoto A. Predicting difficult intubation in apparently normal patients: a meta-analysis of bedside screening test performance. Anesthesiology 2005; 103: 429–37.
26. Nørskov AK, Rosenstock CV, Wetterslev J, Astrup G, Afshari A, Lundstrøm LH. 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.
27. Nørskov AK, Wetterslev J, Rosenstock CV, et al. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation using a systematic assessment of risk factors vs. existing practice – a cluster randomised clinical trial in 94,006 patients. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 296–308.
28. Kheterpal S, Healy D, Aziz MF, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of difficult mask ventilation combined with difficult laryngoscopy. Anesthesiology 2013; 119: 1360–9.
29. El-Boghdadly K, Onwochei DN, Cuddihy J, et al. A prospective cohort study of awake fibreoptic intubation practice at a tertiary centre. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 694–703.
30. El-Boghdadly K, Onwochei DN, Millhoff B, Ahmad I. The effect of virtual endoscopy on diagnostic accuracy and airway management strategies in patients with head and neck pathology: a prospective cohort study. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 2017; 64: 1101–10.
31. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2015; 115: 827–48.
32. Baker PA, O'Sullivan EP, Kristensen MS, Lockey D. The great airway debate: is the scalpel mightier than the cannula? British Journal of Anaesthesia 2016; 117(Suppl): i17–19.
33. Greenland KB, Irwin MG. Big data: breaking new ground in airway research. Anaesthesia 2018; 73: 674–8.
34. Duggan LV, Lockhart SL, Cook TM, O'Sullivan EP, Dare T, Baker PA. The airway app: exploring the role of smartphone technology to capture emergency front-of-neck airway experiences internationally. Anaesthesia 2018; 73: 703–10.
35. Rosenstock CV, Nørskov AK, Wetterslev J, Lundstrøm LH, Danish Anaesthesia Database. Emergency surgical airway management in Denmark: a cohort study of 452 461 patients registered in the danish anaesthesia database. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2016; 117(Suppl): i75–82.
36. Kheterpal S, Healy D, Aziz MF, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of difficult mask ventilation combined with difficult laryngoscopy: a report from the multicenter perioperative outcomes group. Anesthesiology 2013; 119: 1360–9.
37. Myles PS, Grocott MPW, Boney O, et al. Standardizing end points in perioperative trials: towards a core and extended outcome set. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2016; 116: 586–9.
38. Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG, et al. Core outcome set-STAndards for reporting: the COS-STAR statement. PLoS Medicine 2016; 13: 1–11.
39. García-Aroca MÁ, Pandiella-Dominique A, Navarro-Suay R, et al. Analysis of production, impact, and scientific collaboration on difficult airway through the web of science and scopus (1981–2013). Anesthesia and Analgesia 2017; 124: 1886–96.
40. Pandit JJ, Popat MT. “Difficult Airway” bibliometrics: importance of capturing the correct literature. Anesthesia and Analgesia 2017; 125: 2168–9.
41. Foy KE, Mew E, Cook TM, et al. Paediatric intensive care and neonatal intensive care airway management in the United Kingdom: the PIC-NIC survey. Anaesthesia 2018; 73: 1337–44.
42. Pandit JJ, Merry AF. Minimising ‘research waste’ in academic anaesthesia funding and outputs. Anaesthesia 2018; 73: 663–8.
43. Smith AF, Irwin MG. Researching research. Anaesthesia 2018; 73: 668–71.
44. Pandit JJ, Heidegger T. Putting the ‘point’ back into the ritual: a binary approach to difficult airway prediction. Anaesthesia 2017; 72: 283–8.
45. Chrimes N. The Vortex: a universal “high-acuity implementation tool” for emergency airway management. British Journal of Anaesthesia 2016; 117(Suppl): i20–7.