Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ventilatory support in chemical, biological and radiological emergencies
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1590/1518-8345.4024.3347Keywords:
Airway Management, Personal Protective Equipment, Intubation, Laryngeal Masks, Meta-Analysis, DisastersAbstract
Objective: to compare the mean development time of the techniques of direct laryngoscopy and insertion of supraglottic devices; and to evaluate the success rate in the first attempt of these techniques, considering health professionals wearing specific personal protective equipment (waterproof overalls; gloves; boots; eye protection; mask). Method: meta-analysis with studies from LILACS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science. The keywords were the following: personal protective equipment; airway management; intubation; laryngeal masks. Results: in the “reduction of the time of the procedures” outcome, the general analysis of the supraglottic devices in comparison with the orotracheal tube initially presented high heterogeneity of the data (I2= 97%). Subgroup analysis had an impact on reducing heterogeneity among the data. The “laryngeal mask as a guide for orotracheal intubation” subgroup showed moderate heterogeneity (I2= 74%). The “2ndgeneration supraglottic devices” subgroup showed homogeneity (I2= 0%). All the meta-analyses favored supraglottic devices. In the “success in the first attempt” outcome, moderate homogeneity was found (I2= 52%), showing a higher proportion of correct answers for supraglottic devices. Conclusion: in the context of chemical, biological or radiological disaster, the insertion of the supraglottic device proved to be faster and more likely to be successful by health professionals. PROSPERO record (CRD42019136139).
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
RLAE’s authorship concept is based on the substantial contribution by each of the individuals listed as authors, mainly in terms of conceiving and planning the research project, collecting or analyzing and interpreting data, writing and critical review. Indication of authors’ names under the article title is limited to six. If more, authors are listed on the online submission form under Acknowledgements. The possibility of including more than six authors will only be examined on multicenter studies, considering the explanations presented by the authors.Including names of authors whose contribution does not fit into the above criteria cannot be justified. Those names can be included in the Acknowledgements section.
Authors are fully responsible for the concepts disseminated in their manuscripts, which do not necessarily reflect the editors’ and editorial board’s opinion.