Sulagna Bhattacharjee1, Souvik Maitra2, Dalim K Baidya1. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine & Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. 2. Department of Anaesthesiology, Pain Medicine & Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India. Electronic address: souvikmaitra@aiims.edu.
Abstract
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Direct laryngoscopy is the most commonly used modality for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Video laryngoscopy may improve glottic view during laryngoscopy and intubation success rate in such patients. This meta-analysis has been designed to compare clinical efficacy of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Randomized controlled trials comparing video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adult patients in emergency department. PubMed (1946 to 20th October 2017) and The Cochrane Library databases (CENTRAL) were searched for potentially eligible trials on 20th October 2017. PATIENTS: Adult patients presenting in the emergency department. INTERVENTIONS: Video laryngoscopy & direct laryngoscopy for intubation in emergency department. MEASUREMENT: Primary outcome was 'first intubation success rate' and secondary outcomes were overall intubation success rate, in-hospital mortality and oesophageal intubation rate. MAIN RESULTS: Data of 1250 patients from 5 randomized controlled trials have been included in this study. Video laryngoscopy offers no advantage over direct laryngoscopy in terms of first intubation success rate (odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.70, 2.36; p = 0.42), overall intubation success rate (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.53, 3.01; p = 0.6) or in-hospital mortality (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.8, 1.95; p = 0.32). However, oesophageal intubation rate is lower with the use of video laryngoscopy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01, 0.7; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Use of video laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in adult patients is associated with reduced oesophageal intubation over direct laryngoscopy. However, no benefit was found in terms of overall intubation success.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Direct laryngoscopy is the most commonly used modality for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Video laryngoscopy may improve glottic view during laryngoscopy and intubation success rate in such patients. This meta-analysis has been designed to compare clinical efficacy of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Randomized controlled trials comparing video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adult patients in emergency department. PubMed (1946 to 20th October 2017) and The Cochrane Library databases (CENTRAL) were searched for potentially eligible trials on 20th October 2017. PATIENTS: Adult patients presenting in the emergency department. INTERVENTIONS: Video laryngoscopy & direct laryngoscopy for intubation in emergency department. MEASUREMENT: Primary outcome was 'first intubation success rate' and secondary outcomes were overall intubation success rate, in-hospital mortality and oesophageal intubation rate. MAIN RESULTS: Data of 1250 patients from 5 randomized controlled trials have been included in this study. Video laryngoscopy offers no advantage over direct laryngoscopy in terms of first intubation success rate (odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.70, 2.36; p = 0.42), overall intubation success rate (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.53, 3.01; p = 0.6) or in-hospital mortality (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.8, 1.95; p = 0.32). However, oesophageal intubation rate is lower with the use of video laryngoscopy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01, 0.7; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Use of video laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in adult patients is associated with reduced oesophageal intubation over direct laryngoscopy. However, no benefit was found in terms of overall intubation success.
Authors: Timmy Li; Daniel Jafari; Cristy Meyer; Ashley Voroba; Ghania Haddad; Samuel Abecassis; Matthew Bank; Akiva Dym; Ali Naqvi; Rashmeet Gujral; Daniel Rolston Journal: J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open Date: 2021-01-22
Authors: Brandon T Ruderman; Martina Mali; Amy H Kaji; Robert Kilgo; Susan Watts; Radosveta Wells; Alexander T Limkakeng; Joseph B Borawski; Andrea E Fantegrossi; Ron M Walls; Calvin A Brown Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2022-08-19
Authors: J Adam Law; Laura V Duggan; Mathieu Asselin; Paul Baker; Edward Crosby; Andrew Downey; Orlando R Hung; Philip M Jones; François Lemay; Rudiger Noppens; Matteo Parotto; Roanne Preston; Nick Sowers; Kathryn Sparrow; Timothy P Turkstra; David T Wong; George Kovacs Journal: Can J Anaesth Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 5.063