Cardiac arrest & resuscitation
Video vs Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation After Cardiac Arrest: A Secondary Analysis of the Direct vs Video Laryngoscope Trial
Primary resultResult — go to the resultAbsolute risk difference 18.7 percentage points 95% CI 1.2–36.2Authors' conclusion
Among adults undergoing tracheal intubation after experiencing cardiac arrest, use of video laryngoscopy was associated with increased incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt and shortened duration of laryngoscopy, compared with use of direct laryngoscopy.
Study context
- Population
- Adults undergoing tracheal intubation after cardiac arrestof 1,417 in DEVICE trial
- Participants
- 113 adults
- Comparison
- Video vs direct laryngoscopy
- Video laryngoscopyn = 48
- Direct laryngoscopyn = 65reference
- Primary endpoint
- Successful intubation on the first attempt
Methodological detailssubgroup analysis
- Subgroup analysis
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Absolute risk difference
18.7 percentage points
95% CI 1.2–36.2
P = 0.03
Events by treatment group
Video laryngoscopy vs Direct laryngoscopy
absolute risk difference 18.7 percentage points (95% CI 1.2–36.2); P = 0.03
Further findings
Mean, seconds
| Outcome | Video laryngoscopy | Direct laryngoscopy | Mean difference (seconds) (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duration of laryngoscopy | 48.0 (SD 37.3) | 98.0 (SD 122.4) | −50.0 (−86.8 to −13.3) | P = 0.004 | |
| −100−50050Difference, seconds (linear scale) |
Original publication
Video vs Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation After Cardiac Arrest: A Secondary Analysis of the Direct vs Video Laryngoscope Trial. Chest. Published 11 January 2025. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →