4.6 Review

Is obstructive sleep apnea associated with difficult airway? Evidence from a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective cohort studies

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204904

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Difficult airway management and obstructive sleep apnea may contribute to increased risk of perioperative morbidity and mortality. The objective of this systematic review and metaanalysis (SRMA) is to evaluate the evidence of a difficult airway being associated with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) patients undergoing surgery. Methods The standard databases were searched from 1946 to April 2017 to identify the eligible articles. The studies which included adult surgical patients with either suspected or diagnosed obstructive sleep apnea must report at least one difficult airway event [either difficult intubation (DI), difficult mask ventilation (DMV), failed supraglottic airway insertion or difficult surgical airway] in sleep apnea and non-sleep apnea patients were included. Results Overall, DI was 3.46-fold higher in the sleep apnea vs non-sleep apnea patients (OSA vs. non-OSA: 13.5% vs 2.5%; OR 3.46; 95% CI: 2.32 +/- 5.16, p < 0.00001). DMV was 3.39-fold higher in the sleep apnea vs non-sleep apnea patients (OSA vs. non-OSA: 4.4% vs 1.1%; OR 3.39; 95% CI: 2.74 +/- 4.18, p < 0.00001). Combined DI and DMV was 4.12-fold higher in the OSA vs. non-OSA patients (OSA vs. non-OSA: 1.1% vs 0.3%; OR 4.12; 95% CI: 2.93 +/- 5.79, p < 0.00001). There was no significant difference in the supraglottic airway failure rates in the sleep apnea vs non-sleep apnea patients (OR: 1.34; 95% CI: 0.70 +/- 2.59; p = 0.38). Meta-regression to adjust for various subgroups and baseline confounding factors did not impact the final inference of our results. Conclusion This SRMA found that patients with obstructive sleep apnea had a three to four-fold higher risk of difficult intubation or mask ventilation or both, when compared to non-sleep apnea patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据