Comparison of video and direct laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in emergency settings: A meta-analysis

A systematic review of meta-analyses comparing direct laryngoscopy with videolaryngoscopy

PURPOSE

In the preceding 20 years, many randomized-controlled trials and meta-analyses have compared direct Macintosh laryngoscopy with videolaryngoscopy. The videolaryngoscope blades have included both traditional Macintosh blades and hyperangulated blades. Macintosh and hyperangulated blades differ in their geometry and technique for tracheal intubation; certain patient populations may benefit from one blade type over another. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess whether published meta-analyses comparing direct Macintosh laryngoscopy to videolaryngoscopy have accounted for the videolaryngoscope blade type. Secondary objectives evaluated heterogeneity among practitioner experience and specialty, clinical context, patient population, and original primary study outcomes.

SOURCE

A search was performed across Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, ClinicalKey, PubMed, TRIP, AccessAnesthesiology, Google Scholar, and ANZCA discovery. A systematic review identified meta-analyses which compared direct Macintosh laryngoscopy to videolaryngoscopy. There were no patient age or clinical specialty restrictions. Exclusion criteria included non-English language, studies comparing non-Macintosh blade to videolaryngoscopy, and studies in awake patients.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Twenty-one meta-analyses were identified that were published between 1 January 2000 and 7 May 2020. Macintosh and hyperangulated videolaryngoscope blades were combined in most studies (16/21; 76%). Heterogeneity was also present among practitioner experience (20/21; 95%), clinician specialty (15/21; 71%), and clinical locations (10/21; 48%). Adult and pediatric patients were combined or not defined in 5/21 studies (24%). The primary outcomes of the meta-analyses varied, with the most common (7/21; 33%) being first-pass tracheal intubation success.

CONCLUSIONS

Heterogeneity across important clinical variables is common in meta-analyses comparing direct Macintosh laryngoscopy to videolaryngoscopy. To better inform patient care, future videolaryngoscopy research should differentiate blade type, clinical context, and patient-related primary outcomes.

Does video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy affect first-pass success rates for intubation among attending and non-attending emergency physicians in the emergency department?

Background:

To our knowledge, there has been no study comparing intubation characteristics between attending and non-attending emergency physicians in Southeast Asia. We aim to identify whether the use of direct laryngoscopy compared to video laryngoscopy affects first-pass success rates between attending emergency physicians and non-attending emergency physicians.

Materials and methods:

Retrospective analysis of data from 2009 to 2016 in an existing airway registry managed by an academic Emergency Department in Singapore. Primary outcome was first-pass success intubation rate. Secondary outcome was first-pass success rate for difficult intubations. Difficult intubations were defined as LEMON (Look externally, Evaluate 3-3-2 rule, Mallampati score, Obstruction, Neck mobility) score of more than 1.

Results:

There were a total of 2909 intubations. Attending emergency physicians conducted 1748 intubations, while non-attending emergency physicians conducted 1161 intubations. The first-pass success rates for AEP were 84.2% and 67.4% for non-attending emergency physicians. Direct laryngoscopy was used in 86.2% of intubation by attending emergency physicians compared to 89.0% in the intubation by non-attending emergency physicians. Also, 7.6% of intubations by the attending emergency physicians were difficult compared to 8.8% by the non-attending emergency physicians (p = 0.25). Logistic regression of the effect of laryngoscopy device on first-pass success in all intubations showed a negative association with video laryngoscopy (odds ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.56–0.88). In the subgroup of difficult intubations, non-attending emergency physicians are 1.54 times (95% confidence interval, 0.53–4.42) as likely to have first-pass success with video laryngoscopy compared to that with direct laryngoscopy. On the contrary, in the subgroup of difficult intubations, attending emergency physicians are 0.90 times (95% confidence interval, 0.38–2.12) as likely to have first-pass success with video laryngoscopy compared to that with direct laryngoscopy.

Conclusion:

Our study showed that video laryngoscopy has a lower first-pass success rate for all intubations in general. Intubations performed by attending emergency physicians with direct laryngoscopy were associated with a higher first-pass success rate.

Videolaryngoscopy for Physician-Based, Prehospital Emergency Intubation: A Prospective, Randomized, Multicenter Comparison of Different Blade Types Using A.P. Advance, C-MAC System, and KingVision

BACKGROUND

Videolaryngoscopy is a valuable technique for endotracheal intubation. When used in the perioperative period, different videolaryngoscopes vary both in terms of technical use and intubation success rates. However, in the prehospital environment, the relative performance of different videolaryngoscopic systems is less well studied.

METHODS

We conducted this prospective, randomized, multicenter study at 4 German prehospital emergency medicine centers. One hundred sixty-eight adult patients requiring prehospital emergency intubation were treated by an emergency physician and randomized to 1 of 3 portable videolaryngoscopes (A.P. Advance, C-MAC PM, and channeled blade KingVision) with different blade types. The primary outcome variable was overall intubation success and secondary outcomes included first-attempt intubation success, glottis visualization, and difficulty with handling the devices. P values for pairwise comparisons are corrected by the Bonferroni method for 3 tests (P[BF]). All presented P values are adjusted for center.

RESULTS

Glottis visualization was comparable with all 3 devices. Overall intubation success for A.P. Advance, C-MAC, and KingVision was 96%, 97%, and 61%, respectively (overall: P < .001, A.P. Advance versus C-MAC: odds ratio [OR], 0.97, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.13-7.42, P[BF] > 0.99; A.P. Advance versus KingVision: OR, 0.043, 95% CI, 0.0088-0.21, P[BF] < 0.001; C-MAC versus KingVision: OR, 0.043, 95% CI, 0.0088-0.21, P[BF] < 0.001). Intubation success on the first attempt with A.P. Advance, C-MAC, and KingVision was 86%, 85%, and 48%, respectively (overall: P < .001, A.P. Advance versus C-MAC: OR, 0.89, 95% CI, 0.31-2.53, P[BF] > 0.99; A.P. Advance versus KingVision: OR, 0.24, 95% CI, 0.055-0.38, P[BF] = 0.0054; C-MAC versus KingVision: OR, 0.21, 95% CI, 0.043-.34, P[BF] < 0.003). Direct laryngoscopy for successful intubation with the videolaryngoscopic device was necessary with the A.P. Advance in 5 patients, and with the C-MAC in 4 patients. In the KingVision group, 21 patients were intubated with an alternative device.

CONCLUSIONS

During prehospital emergency endotracheal intubation performed by emergency physicians, success rates of 3 commercially available videolaryngoscopes A.P. Advance, C-MAC PM, and KingVision varied markedly. We also found that although any of the videolaryngoscopes provided an adequate view, actual intubation was more difficult with the channeled blade KingVision.

Device and Medication Preferences of Canadian Physicians for Emergent Endotracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Patients

OBJECTIVES

Various medications and devices are available for facilitation of emergent endotracheal intubations (EETIs). The objective of this study was to survey which medications and devices are being utilized for intubation by Canadian physicians.

METHODS

A clinical scenario-based survey was developed to determine which medications physicians would administer to facilitate EETI, their first choice of intubation device, and backup strategy should their first choice fail. The survey was distributed to Canadian emergency medicine (EM) and intensive care unit (ICU) physicians using web-based and postal methods. Physicians were asked questions based on three scenarios (trauma; pneumonia; heart failure) and responded using a 5-point scale ranging from "always" to "never" to capture usual practice.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 50.2% (882/1,758). Most physicians indicated a Macintosh blade with direct laryngoscopy would "always/often" be their first choice of intubation device in the three scenarios (mean 85% [79%-89%]) followed by video laryngoscopy (mean 37% [30%-49%]). The most common backup device chosen was an extraglottic device (mean 59% [56%-60%]). The medications most physicians would "always/often" administer were fentanyl (mean 45% [42%-51%]) and etomidate (mean 38% [25%-50%]). EM physicians were more likely than ICU physicians to paralyze patients for EETI (adjusted odds ratio 3.40; 95% CI 2.90-4.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Most EM and ICU physicians utilize direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade as a primary device for EETI and an extraglottic device as a backup strategy. This survey highlights variation in Canadian practice patterns for some aspects of intubation in critically ill patients.

GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether the use of a GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) improves first-attempt intubation success compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) in the emergency department (ED).

DESIGN

A propensity score-matched analysis of data from a prospective multicentre ED airway registry-the Korean Emergency Airway Management Registry (KEAMR).

SETTING

4 academic EDs located in a metropolitan city and a province in South Korea.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 4041 adult patients without cardiac arrest who underwent emergency intubation from January 2007 to December 2010.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary and secondary outcomes were successful first intubation attempt and intubation failure, respectively. To reduce the selection bias and potential confounding effects, we rigorously adjusted for the baseline differences between two groups using a propensity score matching.

RESULTS

Of the 4041 eligible patients, a GVL was initially used in 540 patients (13.4%). Using 1:2 propensity score matching, 363 and 726 patients were assigned to the GVL and MAC groups, respectively. The adjusted relative risks (95% CIs) for the first-attempt success rates with a GVL compared with a MAC were 0.76 (0.56 to 1.04; p=0.084) and the respective intubation failure rates 1.03(0.99 to 1.07; p=0.157). Regarding the subgroups, the first-attempt success of the senior residents and attending physicians was lower with the GVL (0.47 (0.23 to 0.98), p=0.043). In the patients with slight intubation difficulty, the first-attempt success was lower (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88), p=0.008) and the intubation failure was higher with the GVL (1.07 (1.02 to 1.13), p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

In this propensity score-matched analysis of data from a prospective multicentre ED airway registry, the overall first-attempt intubation success and failure rates did not differ significantly between GVL and MAC in the ED setting. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.

Comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of patients with difficult airway characteristics in the emergency department

The objective of the study is to compare the efficacy of video laryngoscopy (VL) to direct laryngoscopy (DL) on the first pass intubation success of patients with difficult airway characteristics (DACs) in the emergency department (ED). Over a 6-year period, between July 1 2007 and June 30 2013, all intubations performed in an academic ED were recorded in a continuous quality improvement (CQI) database by the operators. The CQI form included information such as patient demographics, operator level of training, device(s) used, number of attempts and outcome of each attempt. In addition, operators performed a difficult airway assessment and noted the presence or absence of the following difficult airway characteristics (DACs): airway edema, cervical immobility, facial/neck trauma, large tongue, obesity, short neck, small mandible, and blood or vomit in the airway. Patients <18 years of age and those not intubated by an emergency physician (EP) were excluded from the analysis. Multivariate regression models were developed to determine the effect of device type (VL or DL) on first pass intubation success as the number of DACs increased. A total of 2,423 intubations were included in this study. First pass success by the number of DACs was as follows in the VL and DL groups, respectively: no DACs [90.8 % (95 % CI 87.5-93.4) vs. 82.0 % (95 % CI 78.0-85.5)]; one DAC [85.1 % (95 % CI 81.2-88.5 %) vs. 69.4 % (95 % CI 63.9-74.5 %)]; two DACs [(80.5 % (95 % CI 74.7-85.6 %) vs. 65.8 % (95 % CI 57.6-73.3 %)]; three or more DACs [68.9 % (95 % CI 63.8-73.7 %) vs. 54.1 % (95 % CI 46.3-61.8 %)]. After adjusting for potential confounders, VL was associated with higher odds of first pass success for patients with no DACs (aOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2-3.3), one DAC (aOR 3.2, 95 % CI 1.9-5.6), two DACs (aOR 2.3, 95 % CI 1.1-4.9), and three or more DACs (aOR 2.9, 95 % CI 1.5-5.5). In patients with DACs, VL was associated with a higher first pass success than DL. VL is recommended as the primary intubating device for patients with predicted difficult airways in the ED.