Videolaryngoscope-Assisted vs. Conventional Technique for Insertion of Transesophageal Echocardiography Probe: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Jaime Andres Arias,Bruno Francisco Minetto Wegner,Kaique Flavio Xa Cardoso Filardi,Larissa Santos Silva,Rafaela Goes Machado Filardi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2024.09.047
IF: 2.894
2024-10-27
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia
Abstract:Objective Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) is an indispensable tool in both intensive care and cardiac surgery, crucial for precise and immediate diagnosis, management of specific clinical situations, and enhancing intraoperative decision-making to improve patient outcomes. While highly beneficial, the physical insertion of the TEE probe carries inherent risks that can lead to severe complications. A previous meta-analysis demonstrated that videolaryngoscope-assisted (VL-assisted) insertion of TEE probes result in fewer secondary complications. However, the studies included in that analysis featured varied control techniques. This update meta-analysis of randomized trials aims to compare the insertion of TEE probes with videolaryngoscope (VL) assistance versus conventional blind insertion. By standardizing comparisons across a larger and more diverse patient sample, the study seeks to provide a more definitive assessment of the efficacy and safety of VL-assisted TEE probe insertion. Design and method Design: This is a systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and meta-analysis. Settings Searches were conducted for studies published up to March 26, 2024, and included the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases.Participants: This meta-analysis included 3 RCTs with 549 patients from cardiovascular surgery and ICU.Interventions: This study examines the use of VL-assisted TEE probe insertion, comparing VL assistance with conventional blind insertion techniques. Results and conclusions Measurements and Mean Outcomes: The aggregated analysis of attempts revealed a statistically significant advantage for the use of the VL (RR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.17, I2 = 83%, p = 0.002). The first attempt for TEE probe insertion showed a moderate advantage for the VL group (RR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.02 to 2.11, I2 = 89%, p = 0.04). Furthermore, complications such as pharyngo-laryngeal injuries showed a statistically significant difference favoring the VL (n=549, RR = 0.36, 95% CI = 0.19 to 0.65, I2 = 23%, p = 0.0007). Conclusion The findings indicate that VL-assisted insertion is superior to conventional blind insertion in reducing injuries during TEE probe insertion and enhancing its success rate.
cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease,respiratory system,anesthesiology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?