The efficacy of utilizing bougie versus stylet in patients requiring endotracheal intubation: updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors:
Abdulmohsin Saeed Dhafer Alalyani
, Bsaim Abdulsalam Altirkistani
, Taif Abdullah Alkhamisi
, Suaad Muhammad Bougis
, Randa Ahmed F Bajunaid
, Rahaf Ahmed Aljohani
, Dalia Mohammed Hamdan
, Rayan Abdulsalam Altirkistani
, Rayan Mohammed Hamdan
Abstract
Introduction: Endotracheal intubation is a high-risk procedure that can be lifesaving for critically ill or injured patients. Assisted devices, such as the bougie and stylet, are commonly used to improve success rates and reduce complications. The bougie facilitates the passage of the endotracheal tube through the vocal cords while the stylet is inserted into the endotracheal tube prior to intubation. However, there is variation in clinical practice regarding the preference for using these devices in difficult airway management. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy of bougie versus stylet in tracheal intubation. Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central of Controlled Trials, and Clinical trials.gov were searched for studies discussing the same topic. The primary outcome was the first-attempt intubation success rate between the bougie and stylet. Our secondary outcomes were to compare the duration of intubation and the complication rates between bougie and stylet. Results: A total of 7 RCTs that enrolled participants (number) were eligible. The bougie approach had a slightly higher success rate on the first attempt, but there was no significant difference between the method's risk ratio (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90–1.15). The duration of intubation, pooled analysis indicated a statistically significant reduction in the duration of intubation with the stylet approach compared to the bougie approach (MD, 8.39; 95% CI, 2.87–13.91). Subgroup analysis revealed lower rates of esophageal intubation (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.26–1.61, I2 = 0%) and pneumothorax (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.54–1.66, I2 = 0%) in the bougie group. Conclusion: This study reported that no significant difference between the use of bougie versus stylet in terms of first-attempt intubation success rates and the complication rates of endotracheal intubation. However, sty let displayed a significantly shorter duration of intubation in comparison to bougie.
Keywords: Endotracheal intubation, tracheal intubation, bougie, gum elastic bougie, stylet
Pubmed Style
Abdulmohsin Saeed Dhafer Alalyani, Bsaim Abdulsalam Altirkistani, Taif Abdullah Alkhamisi, Suaad Muhammad Bougis, Randa Ahmed F Bajunaid, Rahaf Ahmed Aljohani, Dalia Mohammed Hamdan, Rayan Abdulsalam Altirkistani, Rayan Mohammed Hamdan. The efficacy of utilizing bougie versus stylet in patients requiring endotracheal intubation: updated systematic review and meta-analysis. SJE Med. 2024; 09 (September 2024): 229-235. doi:10.24911/SJEMed.72-1709227570
Publication History
Received: February 29, 2024
Accepted: July 15, 2024
Published: September 09, 2024
Authors
Abdulmohsin Saeed Dhafer Alalyani
Department of Emergency Medicine, Ministry of the National Guard - Health Affairs, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Bsaim Abdulsalam Altirkistani
College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Taif Abdullah Alkhamisi
College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Suaad Muhammad Bougis
College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Randa Ahmed F Bajunaid
College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Rahaf Ahmed Aljohani
College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Dalia Mohammed Hamdan
College of Medicine, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Rayan Abdulsalam Altirkistani
Department of Internal Medicine, King Abdullah Medical Complex, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Rayan Mohammed Hamdan
Department of Anaesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University Hospital, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.