4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Predictive performance of three multivariate difficult tracheal intubation models: A double-blind, case-controlled study

Journal

ANESTHESIA AND ANALGESIA
Volume 102, Issue 3, Pages 818-824

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1213/01.ane.0000196507.19771.b2

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We performed a case-controlled, double-blind study to examine the performance of three multivariate clinical models (Wilson, Arne, and Naguib models) in the prediction of unanticipated difficult intubation. The study group consisted of 97 patients in whom an unanticipated difficult intubation had occurred. For each difficult intubation patient, a matched control patient was selected in whom tracheal intubation had been easily accomplished. Postoperatively, a blinded investigator evaluated both patients. The clinical assessment included the patient's weight, height, age, Mallampati score, interincisor gap, thyromental distance, thyrosternal distance, neck circumference, Wilson risk sum score, history of previous difficult intubation, and diseases associated with difficult laryngoscopy or intubation. The Naguib model was significantly more sensitive (81.4%; P < 0.0001) than the Arne (54.6%) or Wilson (40.2%) models. Both the Naguib (76.8%) and Arne (74.7%) model classified more intubations correctly (P = 0.01) than the Wilson model (66.5%). The specificity of Arne, Wilson, and Naguib model was 94.9%, 92.8%, and 72.2%, respectively (P < 0.0001). The corresponding area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.87, 0.79, and 0.82, respectively. Our new model for prediction of difficult intubation was developed using logistic regression and includes thyromental distance, Mallampati score, interincisor gap, and height. This model is 82.5% sensitive and 85.6% specific with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available