Video versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
Pooled result · Successful intubation on the first attemptResult — go to the resultRR for successful intubation on the first attempt 1.12 95% CI 1.04–1.20Authors' conclusion
VL is a more effective and safer strategy compared with DL for increasing successful intubations on the first attempt and reducing esophageal intubations in critically ill patients.
Study context
- Population
- Critically ill patients in the ED and ICU
- Participants
- 3,981 patients · 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
- Comparison
- Video laryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy
- Video laryngoscopy (VL)n = 2,002
- Direct laryngoscopy (DL)n = 1,979reference
- Outcome
- Successful intubation on the first attempt
Methodological detailsrandom-effect models
- Random-effect models
Pooled result
As reported in the abstract
RR for successful intubation on the first attempt
1.12
95% CI 1.04–1.20
P < 0.01
VL vs DL
RR for successful intubation on the first attempt 1.12 (95% CI 1.04–1.20); P < 0.01
Safety
| Outcome | RR (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Esophageal intubationI2 = 0% | 0.44 (0.24–0.80) | P < 0.01 | |
| AspirationI2 = 0% | 0.63 (0.41–0.96) | P = 0.03 | |
| 0.20.5125Relative risk (log scale) |
Original publication
Video versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. Published 2 January 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →