Comparative analysis of airway scope and Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation primarily for cardiac arrest in prehospital setting

Efficacy of bougie first approach for endotracheal intubation with video laryngoscopy during continuous chest compression: a randomized crossover manikin trial

BACKGROUND

Endotracheal intubation is challenging during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and video laryngoscopy has showed benefits for this procedure. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of various intubation approaches, including the bougie first, preloaded bougie, endotracheal tube (ETT) with stylet, and ETT without stylet, on first-attempt success using video laryngoscopy during chest compression.

METHODS

This was a randomized crossover trial conducted in a general tertiary teaching hospital. We included anesthesia residents in postgraduate year one to three who passed the screening test. Each resident performed intubation with video laryngoscopy using the four approaches in a randomized sequence on an adult manikin during continuous chest compression. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success defined as starting ventilation within a one minute.

RESULTS

A total of 260 endotracheal intubations conducted by 65 residents were randomized and analyzed with 65 procedures in each group. First-attempt success occurred in 64 (98.5%), 57 (87.7%), 56 (86.2%), and 46 (70.8%) intubations in the bougie-first, preloaded bougie, ETT with stylet, and ETT without stylet approaches, respectively. The bougie-first approach had a significantly higher possibility of first-attempt success than the preloaded bougie approach [risk ratio (RR) 8.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 62.16, P = 0.047], the ETT with stylet approach (RR 9.00, 95% CI 1.17 to 69.02, P = 0.035), and the ETT without stylet approach (RR 19.00, 95% CI 2.62 to 137.79, P = 0.004) in the generalized estimating equation logistic model accounting for clustering of intubations operated by the same resident. In addition, the bougie first approach did not result in prolonged intubation or increased self-reported difficulty among the study participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The bougie first approach with video laryngoscopy had the highest possibility of first-attempt success during chest compression. These results helped inform the intubation approach during CPR. However, further studies in an actual clinical environment are warranted to validate these findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov; identifier: NCT05689125; date: January 18, 2023.

Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful emergency endotracheal intubations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Intubating a patient in an emergent setting presents significant challenges compared to planned intubation in an operating room. This study aims to compare video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful endotracheal intubation on the first attempt in emergency intubations, irrespective of the clinical setting.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 27 February 2023. We included only randomized controlled trials that included patients who had undergone emergent endotracheal intubation for any indication, regardless of the clinical setting. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2 (ROB2) to assess the included studies. We used the mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), to pool the continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included with a total of 2470 patients. The overall analysis favored video laryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy in first-attempt success rate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI [1.02, 1.18], P = 0.02), first-attempt intubation time (MD =  - 6.92, 95% CI [- 12.86, - 0.99], P = 0.02), intubation difficulty score (MD =  - 0.62, 95% CI [- 0.86, - 0.37], P < 0.001), peri-intubation percentage of glottis opening (MD = 24.91, 95% CI [11.18, 38.64], P < 0.001), upper airway injuries (RR = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.56], P = 0.005), and esophageal intubation (RR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.15, 0.94], P = 0.04). However, no difference between the two groups was found regarding the overall intubation success rate (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

In emergency intubations, video laryngoscopy is preferred to direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful intubation on the first attempt and was associated with a lower incidence of complications.

Evidence-Based Guideline for Prehospital Airway Management

Airway management is a cornerstone of emergency medical care. This project aimed to create evidence-based guidelines based on the systematic review recently conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). A technical expert panel was assembled to review the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The panel made specific recommendations on the different PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) questions reviewed in the AHRQ review and created good practice statements that summarize and operationalize these recommendations. The recommendations address the use of ventilation with bag-valve mask ventilation alone vs. supraglottic airways vs. endotracheal intubation for adults and children with cardiac arrest, medical emergencies, and trauma. Additional recommendations address the use of video laryngoscopy and drug-assisted airway management. These recommendations, and the associated good practice statements, offer EMS agencies and clinicians an opportunity to review the available evidence and incorporate it into their airway management strategies.

Video Laryngoscopy versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Orotracheal Intubation in the Out-of-Hospital Environment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of video and direct laryngoscopy on first-pass success rates for out-of-hospital orotracheal intubation.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception to January 2023. Out-of-hospital studies comparing video and direct laryngoscopy on either first-pass or overall intubation success were included. A random effects meta-analysis was performed with a primary outcome of first-pass success stratified by clinician type and laryngoscope blade geometry. The secondary outcomes were overall intubation success stratified by clinician type, and intubation time. All hypotheses and subgroup analyses were determined a priori.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies involving 35,489 intubations met inclusion criteria. Substantial heterogeneity (>75%) precluded reporting point estimates for nearly all analyses. For our primary outcome, video laryngoscopy was associated with improved first-pass success in 3/5 physician studies, 4/6 critical care paramedic/registered nurse studies, and 7/10 paramedic studies. Video laryngoscope devices with Macintosh blade geometry were associated with improved first-pass success in 7/10 studies, while devices with hyperangulated geometry were associated with improved first-pass success in 3/7 studies. Overall intubation success was greater with video laryngoscopy in 2/6 studies in the physician subgroup and 9/10 studies in the paramedic subgroup. Video laryngoscopy was not associated with overall intubation success among critical care paramedics/nurses (OR = 1.89, 0.96 to 3.72, I2 = 34%). Lastly, 4/5 studies found video laryngoscopy to be associated with longer intubation times.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial heterogeneity among out-of-hospital studies comparing video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy on first-pass success, overall success, or intubation time. This heterogeneity was not explained with stratification by study design, clinician type, video laryngoscope blade geometry, or leave-one-out meta-analysis. A majority of studies showed that video laryngoscopy was associated with improved first pass success in all subgroups, but only for paramedics and not physicians when looking at overall success. This improvement was more common in studies that used Macintosh blades than those that used hyperangulated blades. Future research should explore the heterogeneity identified in our analysis with an emphasis on differences in training, clinical milieu, and specific video laryngoscope devices.

Comparison of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for intubation success in critically ill patients: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

Introduction

This review compares the efficacy of video laryngoscopy (VL) with direct laryngoscopy (DL) for successful tracheal intubation in critically ill or emergency-care patients.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared one or more video laryngoscopes to DL. Sensitivity analysis, subgroup analysis, and network meta-analysis were used to investigate factors potentially influencing the efficacy of VL. The primary outcome was the success rate of first-attempt intubation.

Results

This meta-analysis included 4244 patients from 22 RCTs. After sensitivity analysis, the pooled analysis revealed no significant difference in the success rate between VL and DL (VL vs. DL, 77.3% vs. 75.3%, respectively; OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.84-2.20; I² = 80%; low-quality evidence). However, based on a moderate certainty of evidence, VL outperformed DL in the subgroup analyses of intubation associated with difficult airways, inexperienced practitioners, or in-hospital settings. In the network meta-analysis comparing VL blade types, nonchanneled angular VL provided the best outcomes. The nonchanneled Macintosh video laryngoscope ranked second, and DL ranked third. Channeled VL was associated with the worst treatment outcomes.

Discussion

This pooled analysis found, with a low certainty of evidence, that VL does not improve intubation success relative to DL. Channeled VL had low efficacy in terms of intubation success compared with nonchanneled VL and DL.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=285702, identifier: CRD42021285702.

DirEct versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE (DEVICE): protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomised clinical trial in critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation

INTRODUCTION

Among critically ill patients undergoing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU), failure to visualise the vocal cords and intubate the trachea on the first attempt is associated with an increased risk of complications. Two types of laryngoscopes are commonly available: direct laryngoscopes and video laryngoscopes. For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, it remains uncertain whether the use of a video laryngoscope increases the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt compared with the use of a direct laryngoscope.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The DirEct versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE (DEVICE) trial is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded, randomised trial being conducted in 7 EDs and 10 ICUs in the USA. The trial plans to enrol up to 2000 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation with a laryngoscope. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 to the use of a video laryngoscope or a direct laryngoscope for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome is successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome is the incidence of severe complications between induction and 2 min after intubation, defined as the occurrence of one or more of the following: severe hypoxaemia (lowest oxygen saturation <80%); severe hypotension (systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg or new or increased vasopressor administration); cardiac arrest or death. Enrolment began on 19 March 2022 and is expected to be completed in 2023.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The trial protocol was approved with waiver of informed consent by the single institutional review board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Human Research Protection Office of the Department of Defense. The results will be presented at scientific conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05239195).

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation is a common procedure performed to secure the airway in adults undergoing surgery or those who are critically ill. Intubation is sometimes associated with difficulties and complications that may result in patient harm. While it is traditionally achieved by performing direct laryngoscopy, the past three decades have seen the advent of rigid indirect videolaryngoscopes (VLs). A mounting body of evidence comparing the two approaches to tracheal intubation has been acquired over this period of time. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether use of different designs of VLs in adults requiring tracheal intubation reduces the failure rate compared with direct laryngoscopy, and assess the benefits and risks of these devices in selected population groups, users and settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 27 February 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and conducted forward and backward citation searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with adults undergoing laryngoscopy performed with either a VL or a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL) in any clinical setting. We included parallel and cross-over study designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for the following outcomes: failed intubation, hypoxaemia, successful first attempt at tracheal intubation, oesophageal intubation, dental trauma, Cormack-Lehane grade, and time for tracheal intubation.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 222 studies (219 RCTs, three quasi-RCTs) with 26,149 participants undergoing tracheal intubation. Most studies recruited adults undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation. Twenty-one studies recruited participants with a known or predicted difficult airway, and an additional 25 studies simulated a difficult airway. Twenty-one studies were conducted outside the operating theatre environment; of these, six were in the prehospital setting, seven in the emergency department and eight in the intensive care unit.  We report here the findings of the three main comparisons according to videolaryngoscopy device type. We downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision, study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), inconsistency when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity and publication bias. Macintosh-style videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (61 studies, 9883 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that a Macintosh-style VL probably reduces rates of failed intubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.65; 41 studies, 4615 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99; 16 studies, 2127 participants). These devices may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 42 studies, 7311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view when assessed as Cormack-Lehane grade 3 and 4 (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.48; 38 studies, 4368 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.21; 14 studies, 2404 participants) but this finding was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.89; 18 studies, 2297 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 96%). Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (96 studies, 11,438 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 63 studies, 7146 participants) and oesophageal intubation (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.81; 14 studies, 1968 participants). In subgroup analysis, we noted that hyperangulated VLs were more likely to reduce failed intubation when used on known or predicted difficult airways (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48; P = 0.03 for subgroup differences; 15 studies, 1520 participants). We also found that these devices may increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05; 66 studies, 8086 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the glottic view is probably also improved (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.24; 54 studies, 6058 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we found low-certainty evidence of little or no clear difference in rates of hypoxaemia (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.11; 15 studies, 1691 participants), and the findings for dental trauma were unclear because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.59; 30 studies, 3497 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). Channelled videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (73 studies, 7165 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that channelled VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.61; 53 studies, 5367 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.50; 15 studies, 1966 participants). They may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 47 studies, 5210 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.21; 40 studies, 3955 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.75; 16 studies, 1756 participants) but this was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.12; 29 studies, 2375 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 98%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

VLs of all designs likely reduce rates of failed intubation and result in higher rates of successful intubation on the first attempt with improved glottic views. Macintosh-style and channelled VLs likely reduce rates of hypoxaemic events, while hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of oesophageal intubation. We conclude that videolaryngoscopy likely provides a safer risk profile compared to direct laryngoscopy for all adults undergoing tracheal intubation.

Le mandrin long béquillé : est-ce systématique ?

L’intubation trachéale (IT) est un geste fréquent en médecine d’urgence extra-hospitalière (MUEH) mais elle est associée à un taux élevé d’échec de la première tentative et à certaines complications graves. Le taux de ces dernières augmente avec le nombre de tentative d’IT. La Société française d’anesthésie et de réanimation (SFAR) et la Société de réanimation de langue française (SRLF) avec la collaboration de la Société française de médecine d’urgence (SFMU) ont publié en 2016 des recommandations formalisées d’experts (RFE) sur l’intubation du patient de réanimation. La question qui se pose est la pertinence de ces recommandations pour la MUEH. En effet, la mesure du risque de difficulté est basée sur le score de MACOCHA et en cas de difficulté prévue les outils à utiliser d’emblée sont le vidéo-laryngoscope ou le mandrin long béquillé en laryngoscopie directe. Or il apparait que le score de MACOCHA n’est pas adapté à la MUEH et de façon plus générale, il est complexe de mesurer le risque d’intubation difficile (ID) dans ce contexte. La vidéolaryngoscopie n’a pas encore fait la preuve de sa supériorité par rapport à la laryngoscopie directe en MUEH. Par contre des travaux récents en médecine d’urgence ont démontré que l’utilisation en première intention du mandrin long béquillé augmente significativement le taux de succès de la première tentative de l’IT, même en l’absence de facteur de risque d’ID. Au total, on pourrait considérer chaque IT en MUEH comme a priori à risque de difficulté ce qui justifierait une utilisation d’emblée du mandrin long béquillé. Il semble nécessaire de proposer des recommandations spécifiques à la médecine d’urgence.

Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial

A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19–26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17–21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5–38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21–29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.

Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 1. Difficult airway management encountered in an unconscious patient

PURPOSE

Since the last Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) guidelines were published in 2013, the literature on airway management has expanded substantially. The CAFG therefore re-convened to examine this literature and update practice recommendations. This first of two articles addresses difficulty encountered with airway management in an unconscious patient.

SOURCE

Canadian Airway Focus Group members, including anesthesia, emergency medicine, and critical care physicians, were assigned topics to search. Searches were run in the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL databases. Results were presented to the group and discussed during video conferences every two weeks from April 2018 to July 2020. These CAFG recommendations are based on the best available published evidence. Where high-quality evidence was lacking, statements are based on group consensus.

FINDINGS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Most studies comparing video laryngoscopy (VL) with direct laryngoscopy indicate a higher first attempt and overall success rate with VL, and lower complication rates. Thus, resources allowing, the CAFG now recommends use of VL with appropriately selected blade type to facilitate all tracheal intubations. If a first attempt at tracheal intubation or supraglottic airway (SGA) placement is unsuccessful, further attempts can be made as long as patient ventilation and oxygenation is maintained. Nevertheless, total attempts should be limited (to three or fewer) before declaring failure and pausing to consider "exit strategy" options. For failed intubation, exit strategy options in the still-oxygenated patient include awakening (if feasible), temporizing with an SGA, a single further attempt at tracheal intubation using a different technique, or front-of-neck airway access (FONA). Failure of tracheal intubation, face-mask ventilation, and SGA ventilation together with current or imminent hypoxemia defines a "cannot ventilate, cannot oxygenate" emergency. Neuromuscular blockade should be confirmed or established, and a single final attempt at face-mask ventilation, SGA placement, or tracheal intubation with hyper-angulated blade VL can be made, if it had not already been attempted. If ventilation remains impossible, emergency FONA should occur without delay using a scalpel-bougie-tube technique (in the adult patient). The CAFG recommends all institutions designate an individual as "airway lead" to help institute difficult airway protocols, ensure adequate training and equipment, and help with airway-related quality reviews.

Comparison of McGrath, Pentax, and Macintosh laryngoscope in normal and cervical immobilized manikin by novices: a randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare tracheal intubation performance regarding the time to intubation, glottic view, difficulty, and dental click, by novices using McGrath videolaryngoscope (VL), Pentax Airway Scope (AWS) and Macintosh laryngoscope in normal and cervical immobilized manikin models.

METHODS

Thirty-five anesthesia nurses without previous intubation experience were recruited. Participants performed endotracheal intubation in a manikin model at two simulated neck positions (normal and fixed neck via cervical immobilization), using three different devices three times each. Performance parameters included intubation time, success rate of intubation, Cormack Lehane laryngoscope grading, dental click, and subjective difficulty score.

RESULTS

Intubation time and success rate during first attempt were not significantly different between the 3 groups in normal airway manikin. In the cervical immobilized manikin, the intubation time was shorter (p = 0.012), and the success rate with the first attempt was significantly higher (p < 0.001) when using McGrath VL and Pentax AWS compared with Macintosh laryngoscope. Both VLs showed less difficulty score (p < 0.001) and more Cormack Lehane grade I (p < 0.001) in both scenarios. The incidence of dental clicks was higher with Macintosh laryngoscope compared with McGrath VL in cervical immobilized airway (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

McGrath VL and Pentax AWS did not show clinically significant decrease in intubation time, however, they achieved higher first attempt success rate, easier intubation and better glottis view compared with Macintosh laryngoscope by novices in a cervical immobilized manikin model. McGrath VL may reduce the risk of dental injury compared with Macintosh laryngoscope in cervical immobilized scenario.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03161730), May 22, 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/hom.

Comparing the McGrath Mac Video Laryngoscope and Direct Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Emergency Intubation in Air Rescue Patients: A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Tracheal intubation in prehospital emergency care is challenging. The McGrath Mac Video Laryngoscope (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) has been proven to be a reliable alternative for in-hospital airway management. This trial compared the McGrath Mac Video Laryngoscope and direct laryngoscopy for the prehospital setting.

Advancing emergency airway management practice and research

Emergency airway management is one of the vital resuscitative procedures undertaken in the emergency department (ED). Despite its clinical and research importance in the care of critically ill and injured patients, earlier studies have documented suboptimal intubation performance and high adverse event rates with a wide variation across the EDs. The optimal emergency airway management strategies remain to be established and their dissemination to the entire nation is a challenging task. This article reviews the current published works on emergency airway management with a focus on the use of airway management algorithms as well as the importance of first‐pass success and systematic use of rescue intubation strategies. Additionally, the review summarizes the current evidence for each of the important airway management processes, such as assessment of the difficult airway, preparation (e.g., positioning and oxygenation), intubation methods (e.g., rapid sequence intubation), medications (e.g., premedications, sedatives, and neuromuscular blockades), devices (e.g., direct and video laryngoscopy and supraglottic devises), and rescue intubation strategies (e.g., airway adjuncts and rescue intubators), as well as the airway management in distinct patient populations (i.e., trauma, cardiac arrest, and pediatric patients). Well‐designed, rigorously conducted, multicenter studies that prospectively and comprehensively characterize emergency airway management should provide clinicians with important opportunities for improving the quality and safety of airway management practice. Such data will not only advance research into the determination of optimal airway management strategies but also facilitate the development of clinical guidelines, which will, in turn, improve the outcomes of critically ill and injured patients in the ED.

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation: a Cochrane Systematic Review

Difficulties with tracheal intubation commonly arise and impact patient safety. This systematic review evaluates whether videolaryngoscopes reduce intubation failure and complications compared with direct laryngoscopy in adults. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and clinicaltrials.gov up to February 2015, and conducted forward and backward citation tracking. We included randomized controlled trials that compared adult patients undergoing laryngoscopy with videolaryngoscopy or Macintosh laryngoscopy. We did not primarily intend to compare individual videolaryngoscopes. Sixty-four studies (7044 participants) were included. Moderate quality evidence showed that videolaryngoscopy reduced failed intubations (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.35, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.19-0.65) including in participants with anticipated difficult airways (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.15-0.55). There was no evidence of reduction in hypoxia or mortality, but few studies reported these outcomes. Videolaryngoscopes reduced laryngeal/airway trauma (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96) and hoarseness (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.36-0.88). Videolaryngoscopy increased easy laryngeal views (OR 6.77, 95% CI 4.17-10.98) and reduced difficult views (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.13-0.27) and intubation difficulty, typically using an 'intubation difficulty score' (OR 7.13, 95% CI 3.12-16.31). Failed intubations were reduced with experienced operators (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.13-0.75) but not with inexperienced users. We identified no difference in number of first attempts and incidence of sore throat. Heterogeneity around time for intubation data prevented meta-analysis. We found evidence of differential performance between different videolaryngoscope designs. Lack of data prevented analysis of impact of obesity or clinical location on failed intubation rates. Videolaryngoscopes may reduce the number of failed intubations, particularly among patients presenting with a difficult airway. They improve the glottic view and may reduce laryngeal/airway trauma. Currently, no evidence indicates that use of a videolaryngoscope reduces the number of intubation attempts or the incidence of hypoxia or respiratory complications, and no evidence indicates that use of a videolaryngoscope affects time required for intubation.

Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients - a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

There is significant controversy regarding the influence of video laryngoscopy on the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscopy could improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases from database inception until 15 February 2017. Only randomized controlled trials comparing video and direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in emergency department, intensive care unit, and prehospital settings were selected. The primary outcome was the first-attempt success rate. Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible study. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system was used to assess the quality of evidence for all outcomes.

Results

Twelve studies (2583 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis did not show an improved first-attempt success rate using video laryngoscopy (relative risk [RR], 0.93; P = 0.28; low-quality evidence). There was significant heterogeneity among studies (I² = 91%). Subgroup analyses showed that, in the prehospital setting, video laryngoscopy decreased the first-attempt success rate (RR, 0.57; P < 0.01; high-quality evidence) and overall success rate (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.48–0.69; moderate-quality evidence) by experienced operators, whereas in the in-hospital setting, no significant difference between two devices was identified for the first-attempt success rate (RR, 1.06; P = 0.14; moderate-quality evidence), regardless of the experience of the operators or the types of video laryngoscopes used (P > 0.05), although a slightly higher overall success rate was shown (RR, 1.11; P = 0.03; moderate-quality evidence). There were no differences between devices for other outcomes (P > 0.05), except for a lower rate of esophageal intubation (P = 0.01) and a higher rate of Cormack and Lehane grade 1 (P < 0.01) when using video laryngoscopy.

Conclusions

On the basis of the results of this study, we conclude that, compared with direct laryngoscopy, video laryngoscopy does not improve intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients. Prehospital intubation is even worsened by use of video laryngoscopy when performed by experienced operators.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-017-1885-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The use of video laryngoscopy (VL) for intubation has gained recent popularity. In the prehospital setting, it is unclear if VL increases intubation success rates compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL). We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies comparing VL to DL in the prehospital setting to determine whether the use of VL increases overall and first-pass endotracheal intubation success rates compared to DL.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed of the PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS databases through May 2016 to include studies comparing overall and first-pass success for VL versus DL in patients requiring intubation in the prehospital setting. Data were abstracted by two reviewers. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Of a potential 472 articles, eight eligible studies were included. Considerable heterogeneity (I²  > 90%) precluded reporting an overall pooled estimate across all studies. When stratified by provider type, the pooled estimates for overall intubation success using VL versus DL were a risk ratio (RR) of 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01-0.18) in studies of physicians and RR = 2.28 (95% CI = 1.00-5.20) in nonphysicians. For first-pass intubation success the pooled RR estimates for using VL versus DL were 0.32 (95% CI = 0.23-0.44) and 1.83 (95% CI = 1.18-2.84) among studies using physicians and nonphysicians, respectively. There was moderate to significant heterogeneity between studies when stratified by provider.

CONCLUSIONS

Among physician intubators with significant DL experience, VL does not increase overall or first-pass success rates and may lead to worsening performance. However, among nonphysician intubators with less experience with DL, VL may provide benefit in the prehospital setting.

Use of the GlideScope Ranger Video Laryngoscope for Emergency Intubation in the Prehospital Setting: A Randomized Control Trial

OBJECTIVES

We sought to assess whether the GlideScope Ranger video laryngoscope may be a reliable alternative to direct laryngoscopy in the prehospital setting.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective, randomized, control trial with patient recruitment over 18 months.

SETTING

Four study centers operating physician-staffed rescue helicopters or ground units in Austria and Norway.

PATIENTS

Adult emergency patients requiring endotracheal intubation.

INTERVENTIONS

Airway management strictly following a prehospital algorithm. First and second intubation attempt employing GlideScope or direct laryngoscopy as randomized; third attempt crossover. After three failed intubation attempts, immediate use of an extraglottic airway device.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 326 patients were enrolled. Success rate with the GlideScope (n = 168) versus direct laryngoscopy (n = 158) group was 61.9% (104/168) versus 96.2% (152/158), respectively (p < 0.001). The main reasons for failed GlideScope intubation were failure to advance the tube into the larynx or trachea (26/168 vs 0/158; p < 0.001) and/or impaired sight due to blood or fluids (21/168 vs 3/158; p < 0.001). When GlideScope intubation failed, direct laryngoscopy was successful in 61 of 64 patients (95.3%), whereas GlideScope enabled intubation in four of six cases (66.7%) where direct laryngoscopy failed (p = 0.055). In addition, GlideScope was prone to impaired visualization of the monitor because of ambient light (29/168; 17.3%). There was no correlation between success rates and body mass index, age, indication for airway management, or experience of the physicians, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Video laryngoscopy is an established tool in difficult airway management, but our results shed light on the specific problems in the emergency medical service setting. Prehospital use of the GlideScope was associated with some major problems, thus resulting in a lower intubation success rate when compared with direct laryngoscopy.

Evaluation of gum-elastic bougie combined with direct and indirect laryngoscopes in vomitus setting: A randomized simulation trial

PURPOSE

Videolaryngoscopes may not be useful in the presence of vomitus due to blurred images on the monitor. The objective of our study is to compare the utility of gum-elastic bougie (GEB) application for tracheal intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope (McL), which is a direct laryngoscope, with that of the Pentax-AWS Airwayscope® (AWS) and McGRATH® MAC (McGRATH) in simulated vomitus settings.

METHODS

Sixteen novice doctors performed tracheal intubation on an adult manikin using McL, AWS, and McGRATH with or without GEB under normal and vomitus simulations.

RESULTS

In the normal setting the tracheal intubation was successful with the three laryngoscopes regardless of GEB application. In the vomitus setting, the intubation success rate did not significantly improve using McL, while it did using McGRATH or AWS. In the normal settings, GEB application significantly lengthened the intubation time in all three laryngoscopes. By contrast, in the vomitus settings, GEB application significantly shortened the intubation time in all three laryngoscopes. For the comparison of three laryngoscopes, the intubation time did not differ significantly in normal setting, while it was significantly longer in McG and AWS trials than McL trial.

CONCLUSION

The GEB application facilitates the tracheal intubation in the vomitus setting using McGRATH and AWS in adult simulation.

Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation

BACKGROUND

Successful tracheal intubation during general anaesthesia traditionally requires a line of sight to the larynx attained by positioning the head and neck and using a laryngoscope to retract the tongue and soft tissues of the floor of the mouth. Difficulties with intubation commonly arise, and alternative laryngoscopes that use digital and/or fibreoptic technology have been designed to improve visibility when airway difficulty is predicted or encountered. Among these devices, a rigid videolaryngoscope (VLS) uses a blade to retract the soft tissues and transmits a lighted video image to a screen.

OBJECTIVES

Our primary objective was to assess whether use of videolaryngoscopy for tracheal intubation in adults requiring general anaesthesia reduces risks of complications and failure compared with direct laryngoscopy. Our secondary aim was to assess the benefits and risks of these devices in selected population groups, such as adults with obesity and those with a known or predicted difficult airway.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase on 10 February 2015. Our search terms were relevant to the review question and were not limited by outcomes. We carried out clinical trials register searches and forward and backward citation tracking. We reran the search on 12 January 2016; we added potential new studies of interest from the 2016 search to a list of 'Studies awaiting classification', and we will incorporate these studies into the formal review during the review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered all randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized studies with adult patients undergoing laryngoscopy performed with a VLS or a Macintosh laryngoscope in a clinical, emergency or out-of-hospital setting. We included parallel and cross-over study designs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data, consulting a third review author to resolve disagreements. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, including assessment of risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 64 studies identified during the 2015 search that enrolled 7044 adult participants and compared a VLS of one or more designs with a Macintosh laryngoscope. We identified 38 studies awaiting classification and seven ongoing studies. Of the 64 included studies, 61 included elective surgical patients, and three were conducted in an emergency setting. Among 48 studies that included participants without a predicted difficult airway, 15 used techniques to simulate a difficult airway. Seven recruited participants with a known or predicted difficult airway, and the remaining studies did not specify or included both predicted and not predicted difficult airways. Only two studies specifically recruited obese participants. It was not possible to blind the intubator to the device, and we noted a high level of inevitable heterogeneity, given the large number of studies.Statistically significantly fewer failed intubations were reported when a VLS was used (Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) odds ratio (OR), random-effects 0.35, 95% confidence Interval (CI) 0.19 to 0.65; 38 studies; 4127 participants), and fewer failed intubations occurred when a VLS was used in participants with an anticipated difficult airway (M-H OR, random-effects 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.55; six studies; 830 participants). We graded the quality of this evidence as moderate on the basis of the GRADE system. Failed intubations were fewer when a VLS was used in participants with a simulated difficult airway (M-H OR, random-effects 0.18, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.77; nine studies; 810 participants), but groups with no predicted difficult airway provided no significant results (M-H OR, random-effects 0.61, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.67; 19 studies; 1743 participants).Eight studies reported on hypoxia, and only three of these described any events; results showed no differences between devices for this outcome (M-H OR, random-effects 0.39, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.44; 1319 participants). Similarly, few studies reported on mortality, noting no differences between devices (M-H OR, fixed-effect 1.09, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.82; two studies; 663 participants), and only one study reporting on the occurrence of respiratory complications (78 participants); we graded these three outcomes as very low quality owing to lack of data. We found no statistically significant differences between devices in the proportion of successful first attempts (M-H OR, random-effects 1.27, 95% CI 0.77 to 2.09; 36 studies; 4731 participants) nor in those needing more than one attempt. We graded the quality of this evidence as moderate. Studies reported no statistically significant differences in the incidence of sore throat in the postanaesthesia care unit (PACU) (M-H OR, random-effects 1.00 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.38); 10 studies; 1548 participants) nor at 24 hours postoperatively (M-H OR random-effects 0.54, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.07; eight studies; 844 participants); we graded the quality of this evidence as moderate. Data combined to include studies of cross-over design revealed statistically significantly fewer laryngeal or airway traumas (M-H OR, random-effects 0.68, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.96; 29 studies; 3110 participants) and fewer incidences of postoperative hoarseness (M-H OR, fixed-effect 0.57, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.88; six studies; 527 participants) when a VLS was used. A greater number of laryngoscopies performed with a VLS achieved a view of most of the glottis (M-H OR, random-effects 6.77, 95% CI 4.17 to 10.98; 22 studies; 2240 participants), fewer laryngoscopies performed with a VLS achieved no view of the glottis (M-H OR, random-effects 0.18, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.27; 22 studies; 2240 participants) and the VLS was easier to use (M-H OR, random-effects 7.13, 95% CI 3.12 to 16.31; seven studies; 568 participants).Although a large number of studies reported time required for tracheal intubation (55 studies; 6249 participants), we did not present an effects estimate for this outcome owing to the extremely high level of statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 96%).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Videolaryngoscopes may reduce the number of failed intubations, particularly among patients presenting with a difficult airway. They improve the glottic view and may reduce laryngeal/airway trauma. Currently, no evidence indicates that use of a VLS reduces the number of intubation attempts or the incidence of hypoxia or respiratory complications, and no evidence indicates that use of a VLS affects time required for intubation.

Video laryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy: Which should be chosen for endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation? A prospective randomized controlled study of experienced intubators

AIM

This study compared endotracheal intubation (ETI) performance during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) between direct laryngoscopy (DL) and video laryngoscopy (VL) (GlideScope(®)) by experienced intubators (>50 successful ETIs).

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized controlled study conducted in an emergency department between 2011 and 2013. Intubators who used DL or VL were randomly allocated to ETI during CPR. Data were collected from recorded video clips and rhythm sheets. The success, speed, complications, and chest compressions interruption were compared between the two devices.

RESULTS

Total 140 ETIs by experienced intubators using DL (n=69) and VL (n=71) were analysed. There were no significant differences between DL and VL in the ETI success rate (92.8% vs. 95.8%; p=0.490), first-attempt success rate (87.0% vs. 94.4%; p=0.204), and median time to complete ETI (51 [36-67] vs. 42 [34-62]s; p=0.143). In both groups, oesophageal intubation and dental injuries seldom occurred. However, longer chest compressions interruption occurred using DL (4.0 [1.0-11.0]s) compared with VL (0.0 [0.0-1.0]s) and frequent serious no-flow (interruption>10s) occurred with DL (18/69 [26.1%]) compared with VL (0/71) (p<0.001). For highly experienced intubators (>80 successful ETIs), frequent serious no-flow occurred in DL (14/55 [25.5%] vs. 0/57 in VL).

CONCLUSIONS

The ETI success, speed and complications during CPR did not differ significantly between the two devices for experienced intubators. However, the VL was superior in terms of completion of ETI without chest compression interruptions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) in South Korea KCT0000849.

Airway Management with Cervical Spine Immobilisation: A Comparison between the Macintosh Laryngoscope, Truview Evo2, and Totaltrack VLM Used by Novices--A Manikin Study

Airway management in patients with suspected cervical spine injury plays an important role in the pathway of care of trauma patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate three different airway devices during intubation of a patient with reduced cervical spine mobility. Forty students of the third year of emergency medicine studies participated in the study (F = 26, M = 14). The time required to obtain a view of the entry to the larynx and successful ventilation time were recorded. Cormack-Lehane laryngoscopic view and damage to the incisors were also assessed. All three airway devices were used by each student (a novice) and they were randomly chosen. The mean time required to obtain the entry-to-the-larynx view was the shortest for the Macintosh laryngoscope 13.4 s (±2.14). Truview Evo2 had the shortest successful ventilation time 35.7 s (±9.27). The best view of the entry to the larynx was obtained by the Totaltrack VLM device. The Truview Evo2 and Totaltrack VLM may be an alternative to the classic Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation of trauma patients with suspected injury to the cervical spine. The use of new devices enables achieving better laryngoscopic view as well as minimising incisor damage during intubation.

Comparison of Direct and Indirect Laryngoscopes in Vomitus and Hematemesis Settings: A Randomized Simulation Trial

BACKGROUND

Videolaryngoscopes may not be useful in the presence of hematemesis or vomitus. We compared the utility of the Macintosh laryngoscope (McL), which is a direct laryngoscope, with that of the Pentax-AWS Airwayscope (AWS) and McGRATH MAC (McGRATH), which are videolaryngoscopes, in simulated hematemesis and vomitus settings.

METHODS

Seventeen anesthesiologists with more than 1 year of experience performed tracheal intubation on an adult manikin using McL, AWS, and McGRATH under normal, hematemesis, and vomitus simulations.

RESULTS

In the normal setting, the intubation success rate was 100% for all three laryngoscopes. In the hematemesis settings, the intubation success rate differed significantly among the three laryngoscopes (P = 0.021). In the vomitus settings, all participants succeeded in tracheal intubation with McL or McGRATH, while five failed in the AWS trial with significant difference (P = 0.003). The intubation time did not significantly differ in normal settings, while it was significantly longer in the AWS trial compared to McL or McGRATH trial in the hematemesis or vomitus settings (P < 0.001, compared to McL or McGRATH in both settings).

CONCLUSION

The performance of McGRATH and McL can be superior to that of AWS for tracheal intubation in vomitus and hematemesis settings in adults.

A Randomized Comparison Simulating Face to Face Endotracheal Intubation of Pentax Airway Scope, C-MAC Video Laryngoscope, Glidescope Video Laryngoscope, and Macintosh Laryngoscope

OBJECTIVES

Early airway management is very important for severely ill patients. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of face to face intubation in four different types of laryngoscopes (Macintosh laryngoscope, Pentax airway scope (AWS), Glidescope video laryngoscope (GVL), and C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC)).

METHOD

Ninety-five nurses and emergency medical technicians were trained to use the AWS, C-MAC, GVL and Macintosh laryngoscope with standard airway trainer manikin and face to face intubation. We compared VCET (vocal cord exposure time), tube pass time, 1st ventilation time, VCET to tube pass time, tube pass time to 1st ventilation time, and POGO (percentage of glottis opening) score. In addition, we compared success rate according to the number of attempts and complications.

RESULT

VCET was similar among all laryngoscopes and POGO score was higher in AWS. AWS and Macintosh blade were faster than GVL and C-MAC in total intubation time. Face to face intubation success rate was lower in GVL than other laryngoscopes.

CONCLUSION

AWS and Macintosh were favorable laryngoscopes in face to face intubation. GVL had disadvantage performing face to face intubation.

Pentax Airway Scope® vs Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adult patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The Pentax Airway Scope(®) is a single-use optical videolaryngoscope designed to assist with difficult tracheal intubation. We systematically reviewed the efficacy of the Pentax Airway Scope with that of a conventional laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in adults with 'normal' and 'difficult' airways. We included 17 randomised controlled trials with a total of 1801 participants. We used the DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model to calculate pooled relative risk or weighted mean differences. The relative risk (95% CI) of a Cormack-Lehane grade-1 laryngeal view was 2.40 (1.76-2.49) with the Pentax Airway Scope compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope, p < 0.00001. We found no other differences between the two laryngoscopes. Despite a superior laryngeal view, the Pentax Airway Scope provides little clinical benefit over the conventional laryngoscope.