Interobserver reliability between a nurse and anaesthetist of tests used for predicting difficult tracheal intubation

Comparison of Mallampati test with lower jaw protrusion maneuver in predicting difficult laryngoscopy and intubation

BACKGROUND

Failure to maintain a patent airway is one of the commonest causes of anesthesia-related morbidity and mortality. Many protocols, algorithms, and different combinations of tested methods for airway assessment have been developed to predict difficult laryngoscopy and intubation. The reported incidence of a difficult intubation varies from 1.5% to 13%. The objective of this study was to compare Mallampati test (MT) with lower jaw protrusion (LJP) maneuver in predicting difficult laryngoscopy and intubation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seven hundred and sixty patients were included in the study. All the patients underwent MT and LJP maneuver for their airway assessment. After a standardized technique of induction of anesthesia, primary anesthetist performed laryngoscopy and graded it according to the grades described by Cormack and Lehane. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for both these tests with 95% confidence interval (CI) using conventional laryngoscopy as gold standard. Area under curve was also calculated for both, MT and LJP maneuver. A P < 0.05 was taken as significant.

RESULTS

LJP maneuver had higher sensitivity (95.9% vs. 27.1%), NPV (98.7% vs. 82.0%), and accuracy (90.1% vs. 80.3%) when compared to MT in predicting difficult laryngoscopy and intubation. Both tests, however, had similar specificity and PPV. There was marked difference in the positive and negative likelihood ratio between LJP and MT. Similarly, the area under the curve favored LJP maneuver over MT.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study show that LJP maneuver is a better test to predict difficult laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation. We recommend the addition of this maneuver to the routine preoperative evaluation of airway.

[Evaluation of a protocol for predicting difficult airway in routine practice: interobserver agreement]

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate a protocol for routine assessment of potential risk factors for difficult airway intubation in an anesthesia department, by measuring interobserver agreement and the behavior of the factors in a predictive model.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study group of 320 consecutive patients undergoing major surgery requiring orotracheal intubation was assessed for possible difficult airway. We calculated interrater agreement for recording of the Mallampati score, thyromental distance less than 6 cm, thick neck, kyphosis, small mouth, macroglossia, and dental prosthesis during the preanesthesia examination (by an anesthetist) and on the day of the operation (by an anesthetist and a resident). We constructed a model to predict difficult intubation (requiring 3 or more attempts).

RESULTS

The kappa indices of agreement between the anesthetists at the preoperative examination and in the operating room or the resident were all less than 0.6. Factors like thyromental distance, small mouth, and kyphosis had kappa indices less than 0.21. The kappa index between the resident and the anesthetist in the operating room was over 0.55. The only factor that had a different level of agreement was the presence or not of a dental prosthesis. None of the studied individual factors, nor these factors in association with the Mallampati score, achieved significance in a bivariate regression model to predict difficult intubation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is poor interobserver agreement on factors for predicting difficult airway in comparisons between preoperative and operating room assessment by an anesthetist or a resident. The individual predictive factors and their association with the Mallampati score did not prove useful for predicting difficult intubation.

Inter-observer agreement of tests used for prediction of difficult laryngoscopy/tracheal intubation

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend pre-operative airway evaluation for the prediction of airway management difficulties. Combining tests for evaluation increases the accuracy of the assessment. One model including seven parameters transformed into a simplified airway risk index (SARI) has been proven to be valid. We determined the inter-observer agreement of the specific test combinations included in SARI as well as of the total score.

METHODS

Four observers assessed 136 patients, 120 without and 16 with a difficult airway history. Two residents and two specialists in anaesthesia performed the airway assessment consisting of the measurement of the mouth opening, the thyromental distance (TMD), the ability to protrude the mandible and an evaluation of the Mallampati class and head and neck mobility. Body weight was also recorded. Inter-observer agreement between specialists and residents, separately, was analysed using kappa statistics and Spearman's correlation analysis and the limits of agreement were evaluated using the 95% confidence interval. The agreement between pairs of assessors was also evaluated.

RESULTS

The inter-observer agreement was good to excellent for both specialists and residents when measuring mouth opening (Spearman's correlation coefficient R=0.88-0.97) and the horizontal distance between the upper and lower incisors during jaw protrusion (R=0.56-0.97). The Mallampati classification assessment demonstrated satisfactory to complete inter-observer agreement (kappa=0.41-1). The assessment of TMD and neck mobility showed considerable discrepancies between observers.

CONCLUSIONS

We demonstrated good inter-observer agreement using three tests from SARI and recommend the Mallampati classification, mouth opening and ability of jaw protrusion for pre-operative airway evaluation. A simplification of the assessment of TMD and neck mobility is warranted.

Cardiovascular responses following laryngoscope assisted, fibreoptic orotracheal intubation

The Macintosh laryngoscope has recently been used successfully as an airway clearance device during fibreoptic intubation in patients who presented difficult intubation, but it is not known whether this approach will increase the pressor response to intubation. The aim of this investigation was to compare the cardiovascular responses of this method of facilitating airway clearance with the lingual traction plus jaw thrust method. 40 ASA I or II adult patients were given a standardised general anaesthetic and were randomly allocated to receive either lingual traction with jaw thrust (lingual traction group) or direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh laryngoscope (laryngoscopy group) as the airway clearance manoeuvre prior to fibreoptic orotracheal intubation. Following intubation there was a significant rise in arterial pressure above pre-induction levels in both groups (p < 0.05); however, the arterial pressure in the laryngoscopy group was significantly greater than that in the lingual traction group (systolic: p = 0.031, diastolic: p = 0.002). It appears therefore that the mechanical stimulus of the Macintosh laryngoscopy evokes a greater pressor response than that of lingual traction plus jaw thrust when these interventions are followed by fibreoptic intubation.

The Reliability and Validity of the Upper Lip Bite Test Compared with the Mallampati Classification to Predict Difficult Laryngoscopy: An External Prospective Evaluation

Recently, a new bedside screening test to predict the occurrence of a difficult laryngoscopy has been developed as a substitute for the Mallampati classification. The Upper-Lip-Bite test (ULBT) evaluated the patient's ability to reach or completely cover the upper lip with the lower incisors. It is often accepted that new predictive tools should undergo an external evaluation before the tool is used in clinical practice. Thus, we evaluated this test with respect to applicability, interobserver reliability, and discriminating power and compared it with the Mallampati-score (using Samsoon and Young's modification). The ULBT could not be applied in 12% of all patients (Mallampati score, <1%). However, the interobserver reliability was better for the ULBT (kappa = 0.79 versus kappa = 0.59). The discriminating power to predict a patient with difficult laryngoscopy was evaluated in 1425 consecutive patients. Both tests were assessed simultaneously in these patients by two specially trained independent observers. After the induction of anesthesia, the laryngoscopic view was assessed by the attending anesthesiologist using the classification of Cormack and Lehane. A grade I or II was called easy laryngoscopy and grade III and IV difficult laryngoscopy. The discriminating power for both tests was low (0.60 for the ULBT [95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.63] and 0.66 [0.63-0.69]) for the Mallampati score), indicating that both tests are poor predictors as single screening tests.