Cardiothoracic & vascular anesthesia
Videolaryngoscope versus conventional technique for insertion of a transesophageal echocardiography probe in intubated ICU patients (VIDLARECO trial): A randomized clinical trial
Primary resultResult — go to the resultAbsolute difference 32% 95% CI 16%–48%Authors' conclusion
Our study showed that in intubated critically ill patients required transesophageal echocardiogram, the use of videolaryngoscope resulted in higher successful insertion on the first attempt with lower rate of complications when compared with the conventional insertion technique.
Study context
- Population
- Intubated critically ill ICU patients requiring TEE
- Participants
- 100 patients
- Comparison
- Videolaryngoscope vs conventional technique for TEE probe insertion
- Primary endpoint
- Successful TEE probe insertion on the first attempt
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Absolute difference
32%
95% CI 16%–48%
P < 0.001
By group
Videolaryngoscope vs Conventional
absolute difference 32% (95% CI 16%–48%); P < 0.001
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | Videolaryngoscope | Conventional | Absolute difference (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall success rate | 100% | 72% | 28% (16%–40%) | P < 0.001 | |
| −200204060Difference (linear scale) |
Safety
| Outcome | Videolaryngoscope | Conventional | Absolute difference (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pharyngeal mucosal injuryLower in the videolaryngoscope group | 14% | 52% | 38% (21%–55%) | P < 0.001 | |
| −50050100Difference (linear scale) |
Original publication
Videolaryngoscope versus conventional technique for insertion of a transesophageal echocardiography probe in intubated ICU patients (VIDLARECO trial): A randomized clinical trial. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. Published 24 January 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →