First-Pass Success of Video Laryngoscope Compared With Direct Laryngoscope in Intubations Performed by Residents in the Emergency Department

• Published in: Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) Vol. 15; no. 10; p. e47563
• Main Authors: Sugaya, Akihiko, Naito, Keiko, Goto, Tadahiro, Hagiwara, Yusuke, Okamoto, Hiroshi, Watase, Hiroko, Hasegawa, Kohei
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 24.10.2023
• ISSN: 2168-8184; 2168-8184
• DOI: 10.7759/cureus.47563

BACKGROUNDThe video laryngoscope (VL) has been widely used for intubation in the emergency department (ED). However, their effectiveness remains controversial, particularly among airway management performed by residents in the ED.METHODSWe aimed to examine whether the use of VL, compared to a direct laryngoscope (DL), was associated with higher first-attempt intubation success among intubations performed by residents in the ED. This is a secondary analysis of the data from a prospective, observational, multicentre study of 15 Japanese EDs from April 2012 through March 2020. We included all adult patients who underwent intubation with VL or DL by residents (postgraduate years ≤5) in the ED. The outcome measures were first-pass success and intubation-related adverse events (overall, major, and minor adverse events). To determine the association of VL use with each of the outcomes, we constructed logistic regression models with generalized estimating equations to account for patients clustering within the ED, adjusting for patient demographics, primary indications, intubation difficulty, and intubation methods.RESULTSOf 5,261 eligible patients who underwent an initial intubation attempt by residents, 1,858 (35%) patients were attempted with VL. Intubations performed with VL had a non-significantly higher first-pass success rate than those with DL (77% vs. 64%; unadjusted odds ratio (OR)=1.20; 95% CI=0.87-1.65; P=0.27). This association was significant after adjustment for potential confounders (adjusted OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.06-1.67; P=0.01). As for adverse events, the use of VL was associated with a lower rate of any (adjusted OR=0.67; 95% CI=0.51-0.86; P=0.002) and minor (adjusted OR=0.69; 95% CI=0.55-0.87; P=0.002) adverse events.CONCLUSIONThe use of VL was associated with a higher first-attempt success rate and a lower rate of any adverse events compared to that with DL among intubations performed by residents in the EDs.