Single-use versus reusable metallic laryngoscopes for non-emergent intubation: A retrospective review of 72,672 intubations
Main findingResult — go to the resultAdjusted odds ratio 0.81 95% CI 0.66–0.99Authors' conclusion
Metallic single-use laryngoscopes were associated with less need for rescue intubation with alternate devices and lower incidence of poor laryngeal view compared to reusable metallic laryngoscopes.
Study context
- Population
- Adults undergoing non-emergent procedures under GA requiring tracheal intubation, academic medical center
- Participants
- 72,672 adults
- Exposure
- Metallic single-use vs metallic reusable laryngoscopes
- Single-usen = 37,123
- Reusablen = 35,549reference
- Outcome
- Need for intubation rescue with an alternate device
Methodological detailssingle-site, before-after transition
- Single-site
- Before-after transition
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted odds ratio
0.81
95% CI 0.66–0.99
Single-use vs Reusable
aOR 0.81 (95% CI 0.66–0.99)
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | OR (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Difficult laryngeal view (modified Cormack-Lehane grade ≥ 2b) | 0.86 (0.80–0.93) | |
| Hypoxemia (SpO2 < 90% for >30 s) during intubation attempt | 1.03 (0.88–1.20) | |
| 0.512Odds ratio (log scale) |
Subgroups: RSI, Macintosh blades, Miller blades, difficult airway risk factors (OSA, Mallampati ≥3, BMI >30 kg/m²) (subgroup)
- Similar results observed in subgroup analyses
Original publication
Single-use versus reusable metallic laryngoscopes for non-emergent intubation: A retrospective review of 72,672 intubations. J Clin Anesth. Published 18 June 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →