Awake fiberoptic intubation is one of the recommended strategies for surgical patients with anticipated difficult airway, especially when concurrent difficult ventilation is expected. We performed the first systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing different protocols for awake fiberoptic intubation in anticipated difficult airway, including studies investigating elective awake fiberoptic intubation for scheduled surgery; randomized controlled trials comparing different methods for performing awake fiberoptic intubation; and adult patients with anticipated difficult airway. We excluded studies in the nonoperating theater settings, randomized controlled trials comparing awake fiberoptic intubation with other techniques, and studies based on simulation. Primary outcomes were success rate and death; secondary outcomes were major adverse events. Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials evaluating 2045 patients and 4 areas were identified: premedication, local anesthesia, sedation, and ancillary techniques to facilitate awake fiberoptic intubation. Quality of evidence was moderate–low and based on small-sampled randomized controlled trials. Overall, 12 of 2045 intubation failures (0.59%) and 7 of 2045 severe adverse events (0.34%) occurred, with no permanent consequences or death. All evaluated methods to achieve local anesthesia performed similarly well. No differences were observed in success rate with different sedatives. Dexmedetomidine resulted in fewer desaturation episodes compared to propofol and opioids with or without midazolam (relative risk, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28–0.95]; P = .03); occurrence of desaturation was similar with remifentanil versus propofol, while incidence of apnoea was lower with sevoflurane versus propofol (relative risk, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22–0.81]; P = .01). A high degree of efficacy and safety was observed with minimal differences among different protocols; dexmedetomidine might offer a better safety profile compared to other sedatives.

Guidelines support the use of a restrictive strategy in blood transfusion management in a variety of clinical settings. However, recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed in the perioperative setting suggest a beneficial effect on survival of a liberal strategy. We aimed to assess the effect of liberal and restrictive blood transfusion strategies on mortality in perioperative and critically ill adult patients through a meta-analysis of RCTs. We searched PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Transfusion Evidence Library, and Google Scholar up to 27 March 2015, for RCTs performed in perioperative or critically ill adult patients, receiving a restrictive or liberal transfusion strategy, and reporting all-cause mortality. We used a fixed or random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for pooled data. We assessed heterogeneity using Cochrane's Q and I(2) tests. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 90-day follow-up. Patients in the perioperative period receiving a liberal transfusion strategy had lower all-cause mortality when compared with patients allocated to receive a restrictive transfusion strategy (OR 0.81; 95% CI 0.66‒1.00; P=0.05; I(2)=25%; Number needed to treat=97) with 7552 patients randomized in 17 trials. There was no difference in mortality among critically ill patients receiving a liberal transfusion strategy when compared with the restrictive transfusion strategy (OR 1.10; 95% CI 0.99‒1.23; P=0.07; I(2)=34%) with 3469 patients randomized in 10 trials. According to randomized published evidence, perioperative adult patients have an improved survival when receiving a liberal blood transfusion strategy.

We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled studies evaluating any drug, technique or device aimed at improving the success rate or safety of tracheal intubation in the critically ill. We searched PubMed, BioMed Central, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials and references of retrieved articles. Finally, pertinent reviews were also scanned to detect further studies until May 2017. The following inclusion criteria were considered: tracheal intubation in adult critically ill patients; randomized controlled trial; study performed in Intensive Care Unit, Emergency Department or ordinary ward; and work published in the last 20 years. Exclusion criteria were pre-hospital or operating theatre settings and simulation-based studies. Two investigators selected studies for the final analysis. Extracted data included first author, publication year, characteristics of patients and clinical settings, intervention details, comparators and relevant outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool. We identified 22 trials on use of a pre-procedure check-list (1 study), pre-oxygenation or apneic oxygenation (6 studies), sedatives (3 studies), neuromuscular blocking agents (1 study), patient positioning (1 study), video laryngoscopy (9 studies), and post-intubation lung recruitment (1 study). Pre-oxygenation with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and/or high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) showed a possible beneficial role. Post-intubation recruitment improved oxygenation, while ramped position increased the number of intubation attempts and thiopental had negative hemodynamic effects. No effect was found for use of a checklist, apneic oxygenation (on oxygenation and hemodynamics), videolaryngoscopy (on number and length of intubation attempts), sedatives and neuromuscular blockers (on hemodynamics). Finally, videolaryngoscopy was associated with severe adverse effects in multiple trials. The limited available evidence supports a beneficial role of pre-oxygenation with NIV and HFNC before intubation of critically ill patients. Recruitment maneuvers may increase post-intubation oxygenation. Ramped position increased the number of intubation attempts; thiopental had negative hemodynamic effects and videolaryngoscopy might favor adverse events.