9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of adverse events between video and direct laryngoscopes for tracheal intubations in emergency department and ICU patients–a systematic review and meta-analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine whether video laryngoscope (VL) compared with direct laryngoscope (DL) could reduce the occurrence of adverse events associated with tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients.

          Methods

          The current issue of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science (from database inception to October 30, 2018) were searched. The RCTs, quasi-RCTs, observational studies comparing VL and DL for tracheal intubation in emergency or ICU patients and reporting the rates of adverse events were included. The primary outcome was the rate of esophageal intubation (EI). Review Manager 5.3 software was used to perform the pooled analysis and assess the risk of bias for each eligible RCT. The ACROBAT-NRSi Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was applied to assess the risk of bias for each eligible observational study.

          Results

          Twenty-three studies (13,117 patients) were included in the review for data extraction. Pooled analysis showed a lower rate of EI by using VL (relative risk [RR], 0.24; P < 0.01; high-quality evidence for RCTs and very low-quality evidence for observational studies). Subgroup analyses based on the type of studies, whether a cardiopulmonary resuscitation study, or operators’ expertise showed a similar lower rate of EI by using VL compared with DL in all subgroups ( P < 0.01) except for experienced operators (RR, 0.44; P = 0.09). There were no significant differences between devices for other adverse events ( P > 0.05), except for a lower incidence of hypoxemia when intubation was performed with VL by inexperienced operators ( P = 0.03).

          Conclusions

          Based on the results of this analysis, we conclude that compared with DL, VL can reduce the risk of EI during tracheal intubation in the emergency and ICU patients, but does not provide significant benefits on other adverse events associated with tracheal intubation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

          Videolaryngoscopes are aggressively marketed, but independent evaluation in difficult airways is scarce. This multicentre, prospective randomized controlled trial evaluates six videolaryngoscopes in patients with a simulated difficult airway.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for emergency orotracheal intubation outside the operating room: a systematic review and meta-analysis

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department.

              We determine the proportion of successful intubations with the C-MAC video laryngoscope (C-MAC) compared with the direct laryngoscope in emergency department (ED) intubations. This was a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data entered into a continuous quality improvement database during a 28-month period in an academic ED. After each intubation, the operator completed a standardized data form evaluating multiple aspects of the intubation, including patient demographics, indication for intubation, device(s) used, reason for device selection, difficult airway characteristics, number of attempts, and outcome of each attempt. Intubation was considered ultimately successful if the endotracheal tube was correctly inserted into the trachea with the initial device. An attempt was defined as insertion of the device into the mouth regardless of whether there was an attempt to pass the tube. The primary outcome measure was ultimate success. Secondary outcome measures were first-attempt success, Cormack-Lehane view, and esophageal intubation. Multivariate logistic regression analyses, with the inclusion of a propensity score, were performed for the outcome variables ultimate success and first-attempt success. During the 28-month study period, 750 intubations were performed with either the C-MAC with a size 3 or 4 blade or a direct laryngoscope with a Macintosh size 3 or 4 blade. Of these, 255 were performed with the C-MAC as the initial device and 495 with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope as the initial device. The C-MAC resulted in successful intubation in 248 of 255 cases (97.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 94.4% to 98.9%). A direct laryngoscope resulted in successful intubation in 418 of 495 cases (84.4%; 95% CI 81.0% to 87.5%). In the multivariate regression model, with a propensity score included, the C-MAC was positively predictive of ultimate success (odds ratio 12.7; 95% CI 4.1 to 38.8) and first-attempt success (odds ratio 2.2; 95% CI 1.2 to 3.8). When the C-MAC was used as a video laryngoscope, a Cormack-Lehane grade I or II view (video) was obtained in 117 of 125 cases (93.6%; 95% CI 87.8% to 97.2%), whereas when a direct laryngoscope was used, a grade I or II view was obtained in 410 of 495 cases (82.8%; 95% CI 79.2% to 86.1%). The C-MAC was associated with immediately recognized esophageal intubation in 4 of 255 cases (1.6%; 95% CI 0.4% to 4.0%), whereas a direct laryngoscope was associated with immediately recognized esophageal intubation in 24 of 495 cases (4.8%; 95% CI 3.1% to 7.1%). When used for emergency intubations in the ED, the C-MAC was associated with a greater proportion of successful intubations and a greater proportion of Cormack-Lehane grade I or II views compared with a direct laryngoscope. Copyright © 2012. Published by Mosby, Inc.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                neighbor93918@126.com
                KKU1986@163.com
                dr.libo@vip.163.com
                wuanshi88@163.com
                xuefushan@aliyun.com
                Journal
                Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
                Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med
                Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
                BioMed Central (London )
                1757-7241
                7 February 2020
                7 February 2020
                2020
                : 28
                : 10
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0369 153X, GRID grid.24696.3f, Department of Anesthesiology, , Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, ; Beijing, 100020 China
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0369 153X, GRID grid.24696.3f, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, , Capital Medical University, Beijing Institute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, ; Beijing, 100010 China
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0369 153X, GRID grid.24696.3f, Department of Anesthesiology, , Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, ; Beijing, 100050 China
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1028-6036
                Article
                702
                10.1186/s13049-020-0702-7
                7006069
                32033568
                7eb75a2e-78bd-4396-8669-062a6d0c9039
                © The Author(s). 2020

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 3 September 2019
                : 13 January 2020
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                airway management,laryngoscope,tracheal intubation,randomized controlled trial,observational study

                Comments

                Comment on this article