Randomized Trial of Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults: More Data, More Questions

Video Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Inpatient Emergency Intubation in Adults

BACKGROUND

Emergency intubation carries a higher risk of complications than elective airway management. Video laryngoscopy (VL) could potentially improve patient safety. The goal of this study was to determine whether VL is superior to direct laryngoscopy for the emergency intubation of adults in the inpatient setting.

METHODS

Pertinent studies were retrieved by a systematic literature search in the MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL databases. The selection of studies, data extraction, and assessment of the potential for bias were carried out independently by two of the authors. Effect sizes were reported as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD). The primary endpoint was successful intubation at the first attempt. Further variables were considered as secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

1098 titles and abstracts were retrieved, and the full texts of 43 articles were examined. Eight randomized and controlled trials, with a total of 1796 patients, were analyzed. VL was not found to confer any statistically significant advantage with respect to successful intubation at the first attempt (OR 0.72, 95% confidence interval [0.47; 1.12]) or with respect to the time to successful intubation (MD -8.99 seconds [-24.00; 6.01]). On the other hand, the use of VL was significantly associated with a lower number of intubation attempts (MD -0.17 [-0.31; -0.03]) and with a lower frequency of esophageal intubation (OR 0.27 [0.10; 0.75]).

CONCLUSION

The routine use of VL for airway management in emergency medicine might improve patient safety, as VL is associated with a lower number of intubation attempts and with a lower frequency of esophageal intubation. Further randomized controlled trials are needed before any definitive conclusions can be drawn about the advantages of video laryngoscopy.