Scalpel cricothyrotomy versus punctured cricothyrotomy in the context of the CICO crisis. A systematic review and Meta-analysis
Authors' conclusion
The results show that SCT has an advantage over PCT in terms of time required for the procedure, while there is no difference in overall success rate, first-time success rate after training, and complications.
Study context
- Population
- Cricothyrotomy in the context of the CICO crisis32 studies
- Comparison
- Puncture cricothyrotomy vs scalpel cricothyrotomy
- Outcome
- Overall success rate, first-time success rate and time taken to perform the procedure
Methodological detailsGRADE, Searched Pubmed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane CENTRAL, 1980 to October 2022
- GRADE
- Searched Pubmed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Google Scholar and Cochrane CENTRAL, 1980 to October 2022
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
PCT vs SCTEstimate (95% CI)P value
Overall success rate 82.2% vs. 82.6%
OR for overall success 0.91(0.52–1.58)
P = 0.74First-performance success rate 62.9% vs. 65.3%
OR for first-performance success 0.52(0.22–1.25)
P = 0.15- Puncture techniques (PCT) time 0.34 standard deviations higher
- MD in time required for the procedure 17.12 (95% CI 3.37–30.87); P = 0.01
Safety
| Outcome | PCT | SCT | RR (CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Complications | 21.4% | 15.1% | 1.49 (0.80–2.77) | P = 0.21 | |
| 0.20.5125Relative risk (log scale) |
Original publication
Scalpel cricothyrotomy versus punctured cricothyrotomy in the context of the CICO crisis. A systematic review and Meta-analysis. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. Published 5 March 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →