Airtraq® versus GlideScope® pour l’intubation trachéale chez l’adulte: une revue systématique et une méta-analyse avec analyse séquentielle de l’étude

Purpose: In recent years, various types of indirect laryngoscopes have been developed. Nevertheless, no conclusions have been drawn about which type of indirect laryngoscope is most effective for tracheal intubation. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether the Airtraq® or the GlideScope® is more effective for tracheal intubation. Methods: We extracted studies of adult prospective randomized trials comparing tracheal intubation between the Airtraq and GlideScope. An electronic database was used to extract the studies included in our meta-analysis. We extracted the following data from the identified studies: success rate, glottic visualization, and intubation time. Data from each trial were combined via a random-effects model for calculation of pooled relative risk (RR) or weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). We also performed trial sequential analysis. Results: We included eight trials comprising 571 patients for review. Compared with the GlideScope, Airtraq did not improve success rate, glottic visualization, or intubation time in tracheal intubation (success rate: RR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.05; P = 0.58; I² = 65%; glottic visualization: RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.29; P = 0.69; I² = 64%; and intubation time: WMD, 1.4 seconds ; 95% CI, -6.2 to 9.1; P = 0.72; I² = 96%). The quality of evidence was graded as “very low.” Trial sequential analysis showed that total sample size did not reach the required information size for all parameters. Conclusion: In this meta-analysis, use of the Airtraq indirect laryngoscope did not result in improved success rate, glottic visualization, or intubation time in tracheal intubation compared with the GlideScope. Trial sequential analysis suggests that further studies are necessary to confirm these findings.