A Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Video Laryngoscopy versus Laryngoscopy for Emergency Orotracheal Intubation

Background. Video laryngoscopy has been associated with some orotracheal intubations and enhances the glottic view at time of laryngoscopy and the success rate of the intubation in patients from the emergency department and the intensive care unit. In usual cases, direct laryngoscopy is performed among the patients from the emergency department or the intensive care unit. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we draw the comparison between the video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for the emergency orotracheal intubation. Objective. The objective of the study was to identify the clinical efficacy of video laryngoscopy versus laryngoscopy for emergency orotracheal intubation. Materials and Methods. MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases were analyzed from 2003 to 2020. Keywords used for searching the studies were “laryngoscopy,” “video laryngoscopy,” “direct laryngoscopy,” “emergency department,” “intensive care unit,” “orotracheal,” “video laryngoscope,” “glidescope,” “airway scope,” “airway,” “Macintosh laryngoscopy,” “airway management,” “tracheal intubation,” “orotracheal intubation,” and “intubation.” Results. The first-pass intubation success rates in the intensive care unit were low in video laryngoscopy with 95% CI 1.21 (1.13–1.30) and heterogeneity I2 = 78% favoring direct laryngoscopy nonsignificantly with low heterogeneity. Odds ratio for airway trauma or dental damage was 0.67, 95% CI (0.18–2.54), reported higher in video laryngoscopy. Complications with oesophageal laryngoscopy were higher in video laryngoscopy with risk ratio 0.16, 95% CI (0.09–0.29), odds ratio 0.88, 95% CI (0.65–1.18) for sever hypoxemia, risk ratio 1.53, 95% CI (1.02–2.28) for cardiovascular collapse, risk ratio with 95% CI 1.11 (0.59–2.07) for aspiration complications, and odds ratio 1.32, 95% CI (0.95, 1.85) for Inexperienced medical staff handling laryngoscopy. Conclusion. No significant efficiency was noticed in using video laryngoscopy when compared with direct laryngoscopy with the available data. The data reported in studies are not enough for efficient clinical analysis of the benefits of using video laryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy. Thus, information such as length of stay, mortality, sever complications, and length of hospital stay must be reported.

Efficacy and Safety of Video-Laryngoscopy versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Double-Lumen Endotracheal Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The available meta-analyses have inconclusively indicated the advantages of video-laryngoscopy (VL) in different clinical situations; therefore, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine efficacy outcomes such as successful first attempt or time to perform endotracheal intubation as well as adverse events of VL vs. direct laryngoscopes (DL) for double-lumen intubation. First intubation attempt success rate was 87.9% for VL and 84.5% for DL (OR = 1.64; 95% CI: 0.95 to 2.86; I2 = 61%; p = 0.08). Overall success rate was 99.8% for VL and 98.8% for DL, respectively (OR = 3.89; 95%CI: 0.95 to 15.93; I2 = 0; p = 0.06). Intubation time for VL was 43.4 ± 30.4 s compared to 54.0 ± 56.3 s for DL (MD = −11.87; 95%CI: −17.06 to −6.68; I2 = 99%; p < 0.001). Glottic view based on Cormack–Lehane grades 1 or 2 equaled 93.1% and 88.1% in the VL and DL groups, respectively (OR = 3.33; 95% CI: 1.18 to 9.41; I2 = 63%; p = 0.02). External laryngeal manipulation was needed in 18.4% cases of VL compared with 42.8% for DL (OR = 0.28; 95% CI: 0.20 to 0.40; I2 = 69%; p < 0.001). For double-lumen intubation, VL offers shorter intubation time, better glottic view based on Cormack–Lehane grade, and a lower need for ELM, but comparable first intubation attempt success rate and overall intubation success rate compared with DL.

Intubation using VieScope vs. Video laryngoscopy in full personal protective equipment – a randomized, controlled simulation trial

Background VieScope is a new type of laryngoscope, with a straight, transparent and illuminated blade, allowing for direct line of sight towards the larynx. In addition, VieScope is disposed of after single patient use, which can avoid cross-contaminations of contagious material. This has gained importance especially when treating patients with highly contagious infectious diseases, such as during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. In this context, VieScope has not been evaluated yet in a clinical study. Material and methods This study compared intubation with VieScope to video-laryngoscopy (GlideScope) in normal and difficult airway in a standardized airway manikin in a randomized controlled simulation trial. Thirty-five medical specialists were asked to perform endotracheal intubation in full personal protective equipment (PPE). Primary endpoint was correct tube position. First-pass rate (i.e., success rate at the first attempt), time until intubation and time until first correct ventilation were registered as secondary endpoints. Results For correct tracheal tube placement, there was no significant difference between VieScope and GlideScope in normal and difficult airway conditions. VieScope had over 91% fist-pass success rate in normal airway setting. VieScope had a comparable success rate to GlideScope in difficult airway, but had a significantly longer time until intubation and time until ventilation. Conclusion VieScope and GlideScope had high success rates in normal as well as in difficult airway. There was no unrecognized esophageal intubation in either group. Overall time for intubation was longer in the VieScope group, though in an acceptable range given in literature. Results from this simulation study suggest that VieScope may be an acceptable alternative for tracheal intubation in full PPE. Trial Registration The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Registration date: 09/11/2020; TrialID: DRKS00023406).

Direct Laryngoscopy or Video Laryngoscopy: Which Is Better for Performing Endotracheal Intubation?

Background: Endotracheal intubation is known as the best and challenging procedure to airway control for patients in shock or with unprotected airways. Failed intubation can have serious consequences and lead to high morbidity and mortality of the patients. Videolaryngoscope is a new device that contains a miniaturized camera at the blade tip to visualize the glottis indirectly. Fewer failed intubations have occurred when a videolaryngoscope was used. Other types of videolaryngoscopes were then developed; all have been shown to improve the view of the vocal cords. It may be inferred that for the professional group, including emergency physicians, paramedics, or emergency nurses, video laryngoscopy may be a good alternative to direct laryngoscopy for intubation under difficult conditions. The incidence of complications was not significantly different between the C-MAC 20% versus direct laryngoscopy 13%. The main goal of this review was to compare the direct laryngoscopy with the (indirect) video laryngoscopy in terms of increased first success rate and good vision of the larynx to find a smooth induction of endotracheal intubation. Methods: Currently available evidence on MEDLINE, PubMed, Google scholar and Cochrane Evidence Based Medicine Reviews, in addition to the citation reviews by manual search of new anesthesia and surgical journals related to laryngoscopies and tracheal intubation. Results: This review of recent studies showed that the laryngoscopic device design would result in smooth approach of endotracheal intubation by means of good visualization of glottis and the best success rates in the hands of both the experienced and novice. Video laryngoscopes may improve safety by avoiding many unnecessary attempts when performing tracheal intubation with DL compared to VL as well as easy learning of both direct and indirect laryngoscopy. Conclusion: The comparative studies of different video laryngoscopes showed that DL compared with VL, reveal that video laryngoscopes reduced failed intubation in anticipated difficult airways, improve a good laryngeal view and found that there were fewer failed intubations using a videolaryngoscope when the intubator had equivalent experience with both devices, but not with DL alone. And therefore, knowledge about ETI and their skills, are crucial in increasing the rate of survival.