IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0258972.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative effectiveness of ultrasound-guided and anatomic landmark percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Kun-Te Lin
  • Yung-Shuo Kao
  • Chun-Wen Chiu
  • Chi-Hsien Lin
  • Chu-Chung Chou
  • Pei-You Hsieh
  • Yan-Ren Lin

Abstract

Introduction: Ultrasound-guided tracheostomy (UGT) and bronchoscope-guided tracheostomy (BGT) have been well compared. However, the differences in benefits between UGT and landmark tracheostomy (LT) have not been addressed and, in particular, lack a detailed meta-analysis. We aimed to compare the first-pass success, complication rate, major bleeding rate, and tracheostomy procedure time between UGT and LT. Methods: In a systematic review, relevant databases were searched for studies comparing UGT with LT in intubated patients. The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) of first-pass success. The secondary outcomes were the OR of complications, OR of major bleeding, and standardized mean difference (SMD) of the total tracheostomy procedure time. Results: The meta-analysis included three randomized controlled studies (RCTs) and one nonrandomized controlled study (NRS), comprising 474 patients in total. Compared with LT, UGT increased first-pass success (OR: 4.287; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.308 to 7.964) and decreased complications (OR: 0.422; 95% CI: 0.249 to 0.718). However, compared with LT, UGT did not significantly reduce major bleeding (OR: 0.374; 95% CI: 0.112 to 1.251) or the total tracheostomy placement time (SMD: -0.335; 95% CI: -0.842 to 0.172). Conclusions: Compared with LT, real-time UGT increases first-pass success and decreases complications. However, UGT was not associated with a significant reduction in the major bleeding rate. The total tracheostomy placement time comparison between UGI and LT was inconclusive.

Suggested Citation

  • Kun-Te Lin & Yung-Shuo Kao & Chun-Wen Chiu & Chi-Hsien Lin & Chu-Chung Chou & Pei-You Hsieh & Yan-Ren Lin, 2021. "Comparative effectiveness of ultrasound-guided and anatomic landmark percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(10), pages 1-13, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258972
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258972
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258972
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0258972&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0258972?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0258972. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.