Airway physical examination tests for detection of difficult airway management in apparently normal adult patients
Publication in policy or professional journal


Times Cited
Altmetrics Information
.

Other information
AbstractBackground
The unanticipated difficult airway is a potentially life-threatening event during anaesthesia or acute conditions. An unsuccessfully managed upper airway is associated with serious morbidity and mortality. Several bedside screening tests are used in clinical practice to identify those at high risk of difficult airway. Their accuracy and benefit however, remains unclear.
Objectives
TheobjectiveofthisreviewwastocharacterizeandcomparethediagnosticaccuracyoftheMallampaticlassificationandothercommonly used airway examination tests for assessing the physical status of the airway in adult patients with no apparent anatomical airway abnormalities. We performed this individually for each of the four descriptors of the difficult airway: difficult face mask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult tracheal intubation, and failed intubation.
Main results
We included 133 (127 cohort type and 6 case-control) studies involving 844,206 participants. We evaluated a total of seven different prespecified index tests in the 133 studies, as well as 69 non-prespecified, and 32 combinations. For the prespecified index tests, we found six studies for the Mallampati test, 105 for the modified Mallampati test, six for the Wilson risk score, 52 for thyromental distance, 18 for sternomental distance, 34 for the mouth opening test, and 30 forthe upperlip bite test. Difficult face mask ventilation was the reference standard in seven studies, difficult laryngoscopy in 92 studies, difficult tracheal intubation in 50 studies, and failed intubation in two studies. Across all studies, we judged the risk of bias to be variable for the different domains; we mostly observed low risk of bias for patient selection, flow and timing, and unclear risk of bias for reference standard and index test. Applicability concerns were generally low for all domains. For difficult laryngoscopy, the summary sensitivity ranged from 0.22 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.33; mouth opening test) to 0.67 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; upper lip bite test) and the summary specificity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85; modified Mallampati test) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; Wilson risk score). The upper lip bite test for diagnosing difficult laryngoscopy provided the highest sensitivity compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, summarysensitivityrangedfrom0.24(95%CI0.12to0.43;thyromentaldistance)to0.51(95%CI0.40to0.61;modified Mallampatitest)andthesummaryspecificityrangedfrom0.87(95% CI0.82to0.91; modifiedMallampatitest)to0.93(0.87 to0.96; mouth opening test). The modified Mallampati test had the highest sensitivity for diagnosing difficult tracheal intubation compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult face mask ventilation, we could only estimate summary sensitivity (0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39) and specificity (0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95) for the modified Mallampati test.
All Author(s) ListRoth D, Pace NL, Lee A, Hovhannisyan K, Warenits AM, Arrich J, Herkner H
Journal nameCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year2018
Month5
Day15
Issue Number5
PublisherJohn Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
PagesCD008874
ISSN1469-493X
eISSN1361-6137
LanguagesEnglish-United States

Last updated on 2021-17-09 at 00:05