• Critical care medicine · Mar 2015

    Randomized Controlled Trial

    Comparison of Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy During Urgent Endotracheal Intubation: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

    • Michael J Silverberg, Nan Li, Samuel O Acquah, and Pierre D Kory.
    • Department of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, NY.
    • Crit. Care Med. 2015 Mar 1; 43 (3): 636-41.

    ObjectivesIn the critically ill undergoing urgent endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, multiple attempts are often required with a higher complication rate due to the urgency, uncontrolled setting, comorbidities, and variability in expertise of operators. We hypothesized that Glidescope video laryngoscopy would be superior to direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation.DesignSingle-center prospective randomized controlled trial.SettingBeth Israel Medical Center, an 856-bed urban teaching hospital with a 16-bed closed medical ICU.PatientsOf 153 consecutive patients undergoing urgent endotracheal intubation by pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows, 117 met inclusion criteria.InterventionsPatients undergoing urgent endotracheal intubation were randomized to Glidescope video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy as the primary intubation device.Measurements And Main ResultsThe primary outcome measure was the rate of first-attempt success. Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were similar between groups (20.9 ± 8.2 vs 19.9 ± 7.9). First-attempt success was achieved in 74% of the Glidescope video laryngoscopy group compared with 40% in the direct laryngoscopy group (p < 0.001). All unsuccessful direct laryngoscopy patients were successfully intubated with Glidescope video laryngoscopy, 82% on the first attempt. There was no significant difference in rates of complications between direct laryngoscopy and Glidescope video laryngoscopy: esophageal intubations (7% vs 0%; p = 0.05), aspiration events (7% vs 9%; p = 0.69), desaturation (8% vs 4%; p = 0.27), and hypotension (13% vs 11%; p = 0.64).ConclusionsGlidescope video laryngoscopy improves the first-attempt success rate during urgent endotracheal intubation performed by pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows when compared with direct laryngoscopy.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    This article appears in the collection: Are video laryngoscopes superior to standard laryngoscopy?.


    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..


What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.