OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of video laryngoscopy on the rate of endotracheal intubation on first laryngoscopy attempt among critically ill adults. DESIGN: A randomized, parallel-group, pragmatic trial of video compared with direct laryngoscopy for 150 adults undergoing endotracheal intubation by Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine fellows. SETTING: Medical ICU in a tertiary, academic medical center. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients 18 years old or older. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to video or direct laryngoscopy for the first attempt at endotracheal intubation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients assigned to video (n = 74) and direct (n = 76) laryngoscopy were similar at baseline. Despite better glottic visualization with video laryngoscopy, there was no difference in the primary outcome of intubation on the first laryngoscopy attempt (video 68.9% vs direct 65.8%; p = 0.68) in unadjusted analyses or after adjustment for the operator's previous experience with the assigned device (odds ratio for video laryngoscopy on intubation on first attempt 2.02; 95% CI, 0.82-5.02, p = 0.12). Secondary outcomes of time to intubation, lowest arterial oxygen saturation, complications, and in-hospital mortality were not different between video and direct laryngoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill adults undergoingendotracheal intubation, video laryngoscopy improves glottic visualization but does not appear to increase procedural success or decrease complications.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of video laryngoscopy on the rate of endotracheal intubation on first laryngoscopy attempt among critically ill adults. DESIGN: A randomized, parallel-group, pragmatic trial of video compared with direct laryngoscopy for 150 adults undergoing endotracheal intubation by Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine fellows. SETTING: Medical ICU in a tertiary, academic medical center. PATIENTS: Critically illpatients 18 years old or older. INTERVENTIONS:Patients were randomized 1:1 to video or direct laryngoscopy for the first attempt at endotracheal intubation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patients assigned to video (n = 74) and direct (n = 76) laryngoscopy were similar at baseline. Despite better glottic visualization with video laryngoscopy, there was no difference in the primary outcome of intubation on the first laryngoscopy attempt (video 68.9% vs direct 65.8%; p = 0.68) in unadjusted analyses or after adjustment for the operator's previous experience with the assigned device (odds ratio for video laryngoscopy on intubation on first attempt 2.02; 95% CI, 0.82-5.02, p = 0.12). Secondary outcomes of time to intubation, lowest arterial oxygen saturation, complications, and in-hospital mortality were not different between video and direct laryngoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill adults undergoing endotracheal intubation, video laryngoscopy improves glottic visualization but does not appear to increase procedural success or decrease complications.
Authors: Herbert P Wiedemann; Arthur P Wheeler; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Douglas Hayden; Ben deBoisblanc; Alfred F Connors; R Duncan Hite; Andrea L Harabin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-05-21 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Susan R Wilcox; Edward A Bittner; Jonathan Elmer; Todd A Seigel; Nicole Thuy P Nguyen; Anahat Dhillon; Matthias Eikermann; Ulrich Schmidt Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Maria Michailidou; Terence O'Keeffe; Jarrod M Mosier; Randall S Friese; Bellal Joseph; Peter Rhee; John C Sakles Journal: World J Surg Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Jeremy S Collins; Harry J M Lemmens; Jay B Brodsky; John G Brock-Utne; Richard M Levitan Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 4.129
Authors: Jarrod M Mosier; John C Sakles; Uwe Stolz; Cameron D Hypes; Harsharon Chopra; Josh Malo; John W Bloom Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2015-05
Authors: Jonathan D Casey; David R Janz; Derek W Russell; Derek J Vonderhaar; Aaron M Joffe; Kevin M Dischert; Ryan M Brown; Aline N Zouk; Swati Gulati; Brent E Heideman; Michael G Lester; Alexandra H Toporek; Itay Bentov; Wesley H Self; Todd W Rice; Matthew W Semler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2019-02-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Alan H Morris; Brian Stagg; Michael Lanspa; James Orme; Terry P Clemmer; Lindell K Weaver; Frank Thomas; Colin K Grissom; Ellie Hirshberg; Thomas D East; Carrie Jane Wallace; Michael P Young; Dean F Sittig; Antonio Pesenti; Michela Bombino; Eduardo Beck; Katherine A Sward; Charlene Weir; Shobha S Phansalkar; Gordon R Bernard; B Taylor Thompson; Roy Brower; Jonathon D Truwit; Jay Steingrub; R Duncan Hite; Douglas F Willson; Jerry J Zimmerman; Vinay M Nadkarni; Adrienne Randolph; Martha A Q Curley; Christopher J L Newth; Jacques Lacroix; Michael S D Agus; Kang H Lee; Bennett P deBoisblanc; R Scott Evans; Dean K Sorenson; Anthony Wong; Michael V Boland; David W Grainger; Willard H Dere; Alan S Crandall; Julio C Facelli; Stanley M Huff; Peter J Haug; Ulrike Pielmeier; Stephen E Rees; Dan S Karbing; Steen Andreassen; Eddy Fan; Roberta M Goldring; Kenneth I Berger; Beno W Oppenheimer; E Wesley Ely; Ognjen Gajic; Brian Pickering; David A Schoenfeld; Irena Tocino; Russell S Gonnering; Peter J Pronovost; Lucy A Savitz; Didier Dreyfuss; Arthur S Slutsky; James D Crapo; Derek Angus; Michael R Pinsky; Brent James; Donald Berwick Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-06-12 Impact factor: 4.497