Video versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Critical care Intubation Laryngoscopy Meta-analysis Video laryngoscopy

Journal

Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
02 Jan 2024
Historique:
received: 22 09 2023
accepted: 08 11 2023
medline: 4 1 2024
pubmed: 4 1 2024
entrez: 3 1 2024
Statut: epublish

Résumé

The utilization of video laryngoscopy (VL) has demonstrated superiority over direct laryngoscopy (DL) for intubation in surgical settings. However, its effectiveness in the intensive care unit and emergency department settings remains uncertain. We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VL versus DL in critically ill patients. Critical setting was defined as emergency department and intensive care unit. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed Cochrane and PRISMA recommendations. R version 4.3.1 was used for statistical analysis and heterogeneity was examined with I Our meta-analysis of 14 RCTs, compromising 3981 patients assigned to VL (n = 2002) or DL (n = 1979). Compared with DL, VL significantly increased successful intubations on the first attempt (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04-1.20; p < 0.01; I VL is a more effective and safer strategy compared with DL for increasing successful intubations on the first attempt and reducing esophageal intubations in critically ill patients. Our findings support the routine use of VL in critically ill patients. Registration CRD42023439685 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023439685 . Registered 6 July 2023.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
The utilization of video laryngoscopy (VL) has demonstrated superiority over direct laryngoscopy (DL) for intubation in surgical settings. However, its effectiveness in the intensive care unit and emergency department settings remains uncertain.
METHODS METHODS
We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VL versus DL in critically ill patients. Critical setting was defined as emergency department and intensive care unit. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed Cochrane and PRISMA recommendations. R version 4.3.1 was used for statistical analysis and heterogeneity was examined with I
RESULTS RESULTS
Our meta-analysis of 14 RCTs, compromising 3981 patients assigned to VL (n = 2002) or DL (n = 1979). Compared with DL, VL significantly increased successful intubations on the first attempt (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04-1.20; p < 0.01; I
CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS
VL is a more effective and safer strategy compared with DL for increasing successful intubations on the first attempt and reducing esophageal intubations in critically ill patients. Our findings support the routine use of VL in critically ill patients. Registration CRD42023439685 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023439685 . Registered 6 July 2023.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38167459
doi: 10.1186/s13054-023-04727-9
pii: 10.1186/s13054-023-04727-9
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1

Informations de copyright

© 2023. The Author(s).

Références

Pfuntner A, Wier LM, Stocks C. Most Frequent Procedures Performed in U.S. Hospitals, 2011. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2006 [cited 2023 Aug 5]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK174682/
Russotto V, Myatra SN, Laffey JG. What’s new in airway management of the critically ill. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45:1615–8.
doi: 10.1007/s00134-019-05757-0 pubmed: 31529354
Martin LD, Mhyre JM, Shanks AM, Tremper KK, Kheterpal S. 3,423 Emergency tracheal intubations at a university hospital. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:42–8.
doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e318201c415 pubmed: 21150574
Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:607–13, table of contents.
Schwartz DE, Matthay MA, Cohen NH. Death and other complications of emergency airway management in critically ill adults. Anesthesiology. 1995;82:367–76.
doi: 10.1097/00000542-199502000-00007 pubmed: 7856895
Bernhard M, Becker TK, Gries A, Knapp J, Wenzel V. The first shot is often the best shot: first-pass intubation success in emergency airway management. Anesth Analg. 2015;121:1389–93.
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000891 pubmed: 26484464
Hansel J, Rogers AM, Lewis SR, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adults undergoing tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;4:CD011136.
pubmed: 35373840
Jaber S, Amraoui J, Lefrant J-Y, Arich C, Cohendy R, Landreau L, et al. Clinical practice and risk factors for immediate complications of endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit: a prospective, multiple-center study*. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:2355–61.
doi: 10.1097/01.CCM.0000233879.58720.87 pubmed: 16850003
Agrò F, Barzoi G, Montecchia F. Tracheal intubation using a Macintosh laryngoscope or a GlideScope ® in 15 patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth. 2003;90:705–6.
doi: 10.1093/bja/aeg560 pubmed: 12697606
Stauffer JL, Olson DE, Petty TL. Complications and consequences of endotracheal intubation and tracheotomy. Am J Med. 1981;70:65–76.
doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(81)90413-7 pubmed: 7457492
Lascarrou JB, Boisrame-Helms J, Bailly A, Le Thuaut A, Kamel T, Mercier E, et al. Video laryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy on successful first-pass orotracheal intubation among ICU patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2017;317:483.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.20603 pubmed: 28118659
Prekker ME, Driver BE, Trent SA, Resnick-Ault D, Seitz KP, Russell DW, et al. Video versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation of critically ill adults. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:418–29.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2301601 pubmed: 37326325
Jiang J, Ma D, Li B, Yue Y, Xue F. Video laryngoscopy does not improve the intubation outcomes in emergency and critical patients—A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2017;21:288.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1885-9 pubmed: 29178953 pmcid: 5702235
Ajith P, Bandyopadhyay A, Meena SC, Jain K, Aggarwal S, Gupta SK. Direct laryngoscope versus McGRATH video-laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in trauma emergency: a randomised control trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2022;56:353–5.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2021.09.042 pubmed: 34583873
Dharanindra MJ, Iyer S, Kulkarni SS, Dharanindra M, Jedge PP, Patil VC, et al. Endotracheal Intubation with King Vision Video Laryngoscope vs Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope in ICU: A Comparative Evaluation of Performance and Outcomes. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2023;27:101–6.
doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10071-24398 pubmed: 36865505 pmcid: 9973068
Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page M, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd Edition. 2nd Edition. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 2019.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, The PRISMA, et al. statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2020;2021: n71.
Higgins JP, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Sterne JA. Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions [Internet]. 1st ed. Wiley; 2019 [cited 2023 Apr 22]. p. 205–28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch8
McGrath S, Zhao X, Steele R, Thombs BD, Benedetti A, the DEPRESsion Screening Data (DEPRESSD) Collaboration, et al. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from commonly reported quantiles in meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 2020;29:2520–37.
Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial. Evid Based Mental Health. 2019;22:153–60.
doi: 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117
Harrer M, CP, FT, EDD. dmetar: Companion R Package For The Guide “Doing Meta-Analysis in R” [Internet]. Available from: http://dmetar.protectlab.org/ .
Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2016.
Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Soft [Internet]. 2010 [cited 2023 Apr 22];36. Available from: http://www.jstatsoft.org/v36/i03/
Sanguanwit P, Yuksen C, Laowattana N. Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy in Emergency Intubation: A Randomized Control Trial Study. Bull Emerge Trauma [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Aug 5];9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.30476/beat.2021.89922.1240
Dey S, Pradhan D, Saikia P, Bhattacharyya P, Khandelwal H, Adarsha KN. Intubation in the Intensive Care Unit: C-MAC video laryngoscope versus Macintosh laryngoscope. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2020;44:135–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.medin.2019.10.004 pubmed: 31780257
Abdelgalel EF, Mowafy SMS. Comparison between Glidescope, Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in intensive care unit: randomized controlled trial. Egypt J Anaesthesia. 2018;34:123–8.
doi: 10.1016/j.egja.2018.06.002
Gao Y-X, Song Y-B, Gu Z-J, Zhang J-S, Chen X-F, Sun H, et al. Video versus direct laryngoscopy on successful first-pass endotracheal intubation in ICU patients. World J Emerg Med. 2018;9:99–104.
doi: 10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2018.02.003 pubmed: 29576821 pmcid: 5847508
Driver BE, Prekker ME, Moore JC, Schick AL, Reardon RF, Miner JR. Direct versus video laryngoscopy using the C-MAC for tracheal intubation in the emergency department, a randomized controlled trial. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23:433–9.
doi: 10.1111/acem.12933 pubmed: 26850232
Janz DR, Semler MW, Lentz RJ, Matthews DT, Assad TR, Norman BC, et al. Randomized trial of video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of critically ill adults*. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:1980–7.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000001841 pubmed: 27355526 pmcid: 5203695
Sulser S, Ubmann D, Schlaepfer M, Brueesch M, Goliasch G, Seifert B, et al. C-MAC videolaryngoscope compared with direct laryngoscopy for rapid sequence intubation in an emergency department: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016;33:943–8.
doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000525 pubmed: 27533711
Yeatts DJ, Dutton RP, Hu PF, Chang Y-WW, Brown CH, Chen H, et al. Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: a randomized controlled trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2013;75:212–9.
doi: 10.1097/TA.0b013e318293103d pubmed: 23823612
Griesdale DEG, Liu D, McKinney J, Choi PT. Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth. 2012;59:41–52.
doi: 10.1007/s12630-011-9620-5
Goksu E, Kilic T, Yildiz G, Unal A, Kartal M. Comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation of blunt trauma patients in the ED. Turk J Emerg Med. 2016;16:53–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.tjem.2016.02.001 pubmed: 27896321 pmcid: 5121268
Quintard H, l’Her E, Pottecher J, Adnet F, Constantin J-M, De Jong A, et al. Intubation and extubation of the ICU patient. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2017;36:327–41.
doi: 10.1016/j.accpm.2017.09.001 pubmed: 28919068
Myatra S, Ahmed S, Kundra P, Garg R, Ramkumar V, Patwa A, et al. The All India Difficult Airway Association 2016 guidelines for tracheal intubation in the Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60:922.
doi: 10.4103/0019-5049.195481 pubmed: 28003694 pmcid: 5168895
Higgs A, McGrath BA, Goddard C, Rangasami J, Suntharalingam G, Gale R, et al. Guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120:323–52.
doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2017.10.021 pubmed: 29406182
Kleine-Brueggeney M, Greif R, Schoettker P, Savoldelli GL, Nabecker S, Theiler LG. Evaluation of six videolaryngoscopes in 720 patients with a simulated difficult airway: a multicentre randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:670–9.
doi: 10.1093/bja/aew058 pubmed: 27106971
Kleine-Brueggeney M, Buttenberg M, Greif R, Nabecker S, Theiler L. Evaluation of three unchannelled videolaryngoscopes and the Macintosh laryngoscope in patients with a simulated difficult airway: a randomised, controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2017;72:370–8.
doi: 10.1111/anae.13714 pubmed: 27882535
Wilcox SR, Bittner EA, Elmer J, Seigel TA, Nguyen NTP, Dhillon A, et al. Neuromuscular blocking agent administration for emergent tracheal intubation is associated with decreased prevalence of procedure-related complications. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:1808–13.
doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31824e0e67 pubmed: 22610185

Auteurs

Beatriz Araújo (B)

Department of Medicine, Nove de Julho University, 90 Dom Jaime de Barros Câmara Avenue, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil.

André Rivera (A)

Department of Medicine, Nove de Julho University, 90 Dom Jaime de Barros Câmara Avenue, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Suzany Martins (S)

Department of Medicine, Nove de Julho University, 90 Dom Jaime de Barros Câmara Avenue, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Renatha Abreu (R)

Department of Medicine, Nove de Julho University, 90 Dom Jaime de Barros Câmara Avenue, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Paula Cassa (P)

Department of Medicine, Nove de Julho University, 90 Dom Jaime de Barros Câmara Avenue, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Maicon Silva (M)

Department of Medicine, Nove de Julho University, 90 Dom Jaime de Barros Câmara Avenue, São Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo, Brazil.

Alice Gallo de Moraes (A)

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. gallodemoraes.alice@mayo.edu.

Classifications MeSH