» Articles » PMID: 19399474

Cuff-leak Test for the Diagnosis of Upper Airway Obstruction in Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview
Specialty Critical Care
Date 2009 Apr 29
PMID 19399474
Citations 33
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate, in adults, the diagnostic accuracy of the cuff-leak test for the diagnosis of upper airway obstruction secondary to laryngeal edema and for reintubation secondary to upper airway obstruction.

Methods: Systematic review without language restrictions based on electronic databases and manual review of the literature up to December 2008. When appropriate, a random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression (Moses' method) were performed.

Results: Upper airway obstruction was the outcome in nine studies with an overall incidence of 6.9%. There was significant heterogeneity among studies. The pooled sensitivity was 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.48-0.63), the specificity was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.90-0.93), the positive likelihood ratio was 5.90 (95% CI: 4.00-8.69), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.48 (95% CI: 0.33-0.72), and the diagnostic odds ratio was 18.78 (95% CI: 7.36-47.92). The area under the curve of the summary receiver-operator characteristic (SROC) was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89-0.94). Only three studies have evaluated the accuracy of the cuff-leak test for reintubation secondary to upper airway obstruction. Overall incidence was 7%. The pooled sensitivity was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.38-0.84), the specificity was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.81-0.90), the positive likelihood ratio was 4.04 (95% CI: 2.21-7.40), the negative likelihood ratio was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.26-0.82), and the diagnostic odds ratio was 10.37 (95% CI: 3.70-29.13).

Conclusions: A positive cuff-leak test (absence of leak) should alert the clinician of a high risk of upper airway obstruction.

Citing Articles

Predictors and outcomes of extubation failures in a pediatric intensive care unit: A retrospective study.

Al-Sofyani K J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2024; 19(3):516-523.

PMID: 39026556 PMC: 11255959. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2024.03.005.


Extubation After Acute Brain Injury: An Unsolved Dilemma!!.

Godoy D, Rovegno M, Jibaja M Neurocrit Care. 2023; 40(2):385-390.

PMID: 37667077 DOI: 10.1007/s12028-023-01828-9.


Anaesthetic challenges in a patient with acromegaly and multinodular goitre undergoing endoscopic pituitary surgery.

Jamil J, Wan Hassan W, Ghani A, Yeap T BMJ Case Rep. 2023; 16(2).

PMID: 36796871 PMC: 9936288. DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2022-250640.


Tracheal airway pressure in tracheostomy tube capping trials: an experimental study.

Nowak A, Martin S, Hohne M, Heller W, Usichenko T, Klemm E BMC Pulm Med. 2022; 22(1):484.

PMID: 36539764 PMC: 9768925. DOI: 10.1186/s12890-022-02277-4.


The difficult removal of tracheal tube after general anesthesia: A case report.

Li M, Yan Y, Li P, Zhang L Medicine (Baltimore). 2022; 101(40):e30968.

PMID: 36221343 PMC: 9542731. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030968.


References
1.
Zamora J, Abraira V, Muriel A, Khan K, Coomarasamy A . Meta-DiSc: a software for meta-analysis of test accuracy data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006; 6:31. PMC: 1552081. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-31. View

2.
Francois B, Bellissant E, Gissot V, Desachy A, Normand S, Boulain T . 12-h pretreatment with methylprednisolone versus placebo for prevention of postextubation laryngeal oedema: a randomised double-blind trial. Lancet. 2007; 369(9567):1083-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60526-1. View

3.
Jaber S, Chanques G, Matecki S, Ramonatxo M, Vergne C, Souche B . Post-extubation stridor in intensive care unit patients. Risk factors evaluation and importance of the cuff-leak test. Intensive Care Med. 2003; 29(1):69-74. DOI: 10.1007/s00134-002-1563-4. View

4.
Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C . Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997; 315(7109):629-34. PMC: 2127453. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629. View

5.
Kriner E, Shafazand S, Colice G . The endotracheal tube cuff-leak test as a predictor for postextubation stridor. Respir Care. 2005; 50(12):1632-8. View