Vie Scope® versus videolaryngoscopy in expected difficult airways: a randomized controlled trial
Primary resultResult — go to the resultDifference in means 7 % 95% CI −9 to 23Authors' conclusion
Visualization with the Vie Scope was noninferior to VL in patients with an anticipated difficult airway, but TTI was longer in the Vie Scope group.
Study context
- Population
- Patients undergoing elective ear, nose, and throat or oral and maxillofacial surgery with an anticipated difficult airwaytwo sets of 29 analysed
- Participants
- 29 vs 29
- Comparison
- Vie Scope vs Macintosh videolaryngoscopy for tracheal intubation
- Vie Scopen = 29
- Videolaryngoscopy (VL)n = 29reference
- Primary endpoint
- Laryngeal visualization by percentage of glottis opening (POGO) scale
Methodological detailsprospective, noninferiority, 1:1 randomisation
- Prospective
- Noninferiority
- 1:1 randomisation
Primary result
As reported in the abstract
Difference in means
7 %
95% CI −9 to 23
P = 0.38
By group
Vie Scope vs VL
difference in means 7 % (95% CI −9 to 23); P = 0.38
Secondary outcomes
Mean, sec
| Outcome | Vie Scope | VL | Difference in means (sec) (95% CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Time to successful intubation (TTI) | 125 (SD 129) | 51 (SD 36) | 75 (25–124) | P = 0.005 | |
| −50050100150Difference, sec (linear scale) |
First-attempt success rate
Overall success rate
- First-attempt success rate: 22/29 in both groups
- Overall success rate: 27/29 in both groups
Switch to a different device
- Patients switched to a different device, per group
- 2
Safety
- Accidental esophageal intubation · presumably due to bougie misplacement — Vie Scope
- 4 events
Original publication
Vie Scope® versus videolaryngoscopy in expected difficult airways: a randomized controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. Published 3 August 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →