Comparison of the time to successful endotracheal intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope or KingVision video laryngoscope in the emergency department: A prospective observational study

Efficacy of Video Laryngoscopy versus Direct Laryngoscopy in the Prehospital Setting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Placing an endotracheal tube is a life-saving measure. Direct laryngoscopy (DL) is traditionally the default method. Video laryngoscopy (VL) has been shown to improve efficiency, but there is insufficient evidence comparing VL versus DL in the prehospital settings. This study, comprising a systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis, assesses current literature for the efficacy of VL in prehospital settings.

METHODS

PubMed and Scopus databases were searched from their beginnings through March 1, 2022 for eligible studies. Outcomes were the first successful intubation, overall success rate, and number of total DL versus VL attempts in real-life clinical situations. Cochrane's Risk of Bias (RoB) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were applied to assess risk of bias and study quality; Q-statistics and I2 values were used to assess heterogeneity.

RESULTS

The search yielded seven studies involving 23,953 patients, 6,674 (28%) of whom underwent intubation via VL. Compared to DL, VL was associated with a statistically higher risk ratio for first-pass success (Risk Ratio [RR] = 1.116; 95% CI, 1.005-1.239; P = .041; I2 = 87%). The I2 value for the subgroup of prospective studies was 0% compared to 89% for retrospective studies. In addition, VL was associated with higher likelihood of overall success rate (RR = 1.097; 95% CI, 1.01-1.18; P = .021; I2 = 85%) and lower mean number of attempts (Mean Difference = -0.529; 95% CI, -0.922 to -0.137; P = .008).

CONCLUSION

The meta-analysis suggested that VL was associated with higher likelihood of achieving first-pass success, greater overall success rate, and lower number of intubation attempts for adults in the prehospital settings. This study had high heterogeneity, likely presenced by the inclusion of retrospective observational studies. Further studies with more rigorous methodology are needed to confirm these results.

Airway Management of Suspected Traumatic Brain Injury Patients in the Emergency Room

The patients of trauma offers a special challenge because of the associated head injury, maxillofacial, neck and spine injuries, which puts the airway at imminent risk. The response time for the emergency team to initiate the airway management determines the outcome of the individual undergoing treatment. A judious implementatin of triage and ATLS guidelines are helpful in the allocation of resources in airway management of trauma patients. One must not get distracted with the severity of other organ systems because cerebral tissue permits a low threshold to the hypoxic insults. Adequate preparedness and a team effort result in better airway management and improved outcomes in trauma patients with variable hemodynamic response to resuscitation. All possible efforts must be made to secure a definitive airway (if required) and should be verified clinically as well as with the available adjuncts. The success of a trauma team depends on the familiarity to the airways devices and their discrete application in various situations.

The use of video laryngoscopy outside the operating room: A systematic review

This study aimed to describe how video laryngoscopy is used outside the operating room within the hospital setting. Specifically, we aimed to summarise the evidence for the use of video laryngoscopy outside the operating room, and detail how it appears in current clinical practice guidelines. A literature search was conducted across two databases (MEDLINE and Embase), and all articles underwent screening for relevance to our aims and pre-determined exclusion criteria. Our results include 14 clinical practice guidelines, 12 interventional studies, 38 observational studies. Our results show that video laryngoscopy is likely to improve glottic view and decrease the incidence of oesophageal intubations; however, it remains unclear as to how this contributes to first-pass success, overall intubation success and clinical outcomes such as mortality outside the operating room. Furthermore, our results indicate that the appearance of video laryngoscopy in clinical practice guidelines has increased in recent years, and particularly through the COVID-19 pandemic. Current COVID-19 airway management guidelines unanimously introduce video laryngoscopy as a first-line (rather than rescue) device.

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.

Aerosol box for intubation of patients with suspected COVID-19: simulation study

Introduction. Endotracheal intubation is a procedure associated with a high level of exposure to the COVID-19 virus. This has led to the search of alternatives to reduce the risk of contamination, including the so-called aerosol box. Objective: To compare time and difficulty of orotracheal intubation when using the aerosol box in a simulated setting. Methodology: Observational study conducted with the participation of 33 anesthetist physicians and anesthesia residents; groups were compared in terms of time and intubation difficulty using a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope and the McGRATH™ MAC (Medtronic) videolaryngoscope with or without aerosol box. In order to determine performance with the intubation maneuver, crude hazard ratios were estimated, and a Cox multivariate regression model was built, adjusted by anesthetist years of experience and difficulties during the procedure. Results: On average, the aerosol box increased intubation time by 7.57 seconds (SD 8.33) when the videolaryngoscope was used, and by 6.62 (SD 5.74) with the Macintosh. Overall, 132 intubations were performed, with 121 successful and 6 failed first-time attempts (4 with the use of the aerosol box); 16 participants (48.48%) reported difficulty handling the box. With the use of the Macintosh, intubation was found to be faster than with the videolaryngoscope (cHR: 1.36 [95% CI 0.64-2.88]; adjusted HR: 2.20 [95% CI 0.73-6.62]). Conclusions: The use of the aerosol box and personal protective equipment in a simulation setting hinders the intubation maneuver and may result in protracted execution time.