Evidence Hub

Prevalence of Interventions After Difficult Airway Response Team Activation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Q. Tran, Chih-Hsuan Chen, J. Palmer, Madison Moran, Vera Bzhilyanskaya, D. Yamane, A. Pourmand

Respiratory care, 2025

4,092 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Background: We sought to define the prevalence of interventions by the Difficult Airway Response Team (DART) following its activation and investigate variables associated with increased risk of surgical airway and successful first intubation attempt. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and included 14 studies in our meta-analysis. DART activations in ICUs, general wards, and emergency departments (EDs) were inspected. Variables collected included age, body mass index, and the percentage of subjects with a known difficult airway. Additional data included the DART activation location and time, the method of airway securement, and the number of first successful intubation attempts. The primary outcome was the prevalence of interventions by DART, defined as the number of subjects who underwent intubation by any method or received a surgical airway following consultation and evaluation by the DART. We used random-effects models. Moderator analyses and meta-regressions were performed to identify sources of heterogeneity and clinical variables associated with the prevalence of interventions by DART after its activation, respectively. Results: We included 4,092 subjects with a mean age of 57 (±3) years. Eleven studies reported 36% (1,030) female subjects. There were 3,441 DART activations among subjects in the ED, ICU, and ward. The pooled prevalence of the interventions by the DART, after activation was 76% (95% CI 0.41–0.93). The pooled prevalences of surgical airway…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 4,092 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free