A comparison between video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

摘要

Study objectivesDirect laryngoscopy is the most commonly used modality for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Video laryngoscopy may improve glottic view during laryngoscopy and intubation success rate in such patients. This meta-analysis has been designed to compare clinical efficacy of video laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. DesignMeta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. SettingRandomized controlled trials comparing video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in adult patients in emergency department. PubMed (1946 to 20th October 2017) and The Cochrane Library databases (CENTRAL) were searched for potentially eligible trials on 20th October 2017. PatientsAdult patients presenting in the emergency department. InterventionsVideo laryngoscopy & direct laryngoscopy for intubation in emergency department. MeasurementPrimary outcome was ‘first intubation success rate’ and secondary outcomes were overall intubation success rate, in-hospital mortality and oesophageal intubation rate. Main resultsData of 1250 patients from 5 randomized controlled trials have been included in this study. Video laryngoscopy offers no advantage over direct laryngoscopy in terms of first intubation success rate (odds ratio 1.28, 95% CI 0.70, 2.36;p?=?0.42), overall intubation success rate (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.53, 3.01;p?=?0.6) or in-hospital mortality (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.8, 1.95;p?=?0.32). However, oesophageal intubation rate is lower with the use of video laryngoscopy (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.01, 0.7;p?=?0.02). ConclusionUse of video laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation in adult patients is associated with reduced oesophageal intubation over direct laryngoscopy. However, no benefit was found in terms of overall intubation success.