Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis

Objectives The use of video laryngoscopy (VL) for intubation has gained recent popularity. In the prehospital setting, it is unclear if VL increases intubation success rates compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL). We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies comparing VL to DL...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Academic emergency medicine 2017-08, Vol.24 (8), p.1018-1026
Hauptverfasser: Savino, P. Brian, Reichelderfer, Scott, Mercer, Mary P., Wang, Ralph C., Sporer, Karl A., Miner, James R.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1026
container_issue 8
container_start_page 1018
container_title Academic emergency medicine
container_volume 24
creator Savino, P. Brian
Reichelderfer, Scott
Mercer, Mary P.
Wang, Ralph C.
Sporer, Karl A.
Miner, James R.
description Objectives The use of video laryngoscopy (VL) for intubation has gained recent popularity. In the prehospital setting, it is unclear if VL increases intubation success rates compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL). We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies comparing VL to DL in the prehospital setting to determine whether the use of VL increases overall and first‐pass endotracheal intubation success rates compared to DL. Methods A systematic search was performed of the PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS databases through May 2016 to include studies comparing overall and first‐pass success for VL versus DL in patients requiring intubation in the prehospital setting. Data were ed by two reviewers. A meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model. Results Of a potential 472 articles, eight eligible studies were included. Considerable heterogeneity (I2 > 90%) precluded reporting an overall pooled estimate across all studies. When stratified by provider type, the pooled estimates for overall intubation success using VL versus DL were a risk ratio (RR) of 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.18) in studies of physicians and RR = 2.28 (95% CI = 1.00–5.20) in nonphysicians. For first‐pass intubation success the pooled RR estimates for using VL versus DL were 0.32 (95% CI = 0.23–0.44) and 1.83 (95% CI = 1.18–2.84) among studies using physicians and nonphysicians, respectively. There was moderate to significant heterogeneity between studies when stratified by provider. Conclusions Among physician intubators with significant DL experience, VL does not increase overall or first‐pass success rates and may lead to worsening performance. However, among nonphysician intubators with less experience with DL, VL may provide benefit in the prehospital setting.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/acem.13193
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1884169129</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1927527060</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3933-859320cbc865c5ab20d9dd74fcc87b11925c554057c2c5f96a4200f5b3bb070f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMlOwzAQhi0EomwXHgBZ4oKQUrzUccytKmWRikAsvUaO44BREhc7ocqNR-AZeRJcWjhwYC4ztj79mvkA2Meoj0OdSKWrPqZY0DWwhRmjEeGYrIcZxSKKWUx7YNv7F4QQ44Jvgh5JKEecxlsgPzNOqwZOtfOth1OTawsn0nX1k_XKzjpYWAdvnX62fmYaWcKrumkz2Rhbn8IhvO98o6vwVPBOvxk9h7LO4bVu5Of7h6xl2Xnjd8FGIUuv91Z9Bzyejx9Gl9Hk5uJqNJxEigpKo4QJSpDKVBIzxWRGUC7ynA8KpRKeYSxI-GaDcIQiihUilgOCUMEymmWIo4LugKNl7szZ11b7Jq2MV7osZa1t61OcJAMcC0xEQA__oC-2dWHfQAnCGeEoRoE6XlLKWe-dLtKZM1Wwk2KULtynC_fpt_sAH6wi26zS-S_6IzsAeAnMTam7f6LS4Wh8vQz9AqSNjw0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1927527060</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Free Content</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Savino, P. Brian ; Reichelderfer, Scott ; Mercer, Mary P. ; Wang, Ralph C. ; Sporer, Karl A. ; Miner, James R.</creator><creatorcontrib>Savino, P. Brian ; Reichelderfer, Scott ; Mercer, Mary P. ; Wang, Ralph C. ; Sporer, Karl A. ; Miner, James R.</creatorcontrib><description>Objectives The use of video laryngoscopy (VL) for intubation has gained recent popularity. In the prehospital setting, it is unclear if VL increases intubation success rates compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL). We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies comparing VL to DL in the prehospital setting to determine whether the use of VL increases overall and first‐pass endotracheal intubation success rates compared to DL. Methods A systematic search was performed of the PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS databases through May 2016 to include studies comparing overall and first‐pass success for VL versus DL in patients requiring intubation in the prehospital setting. Data were ed by two reviewers. A meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model. Results Of a potential 472 articles, eight eligible studies were included. Considerable heterogeneity (I2 &gt; 90%) precluded reporting an overall pooled estimate across all studies. When stratified by provider type, the pooled estimates for overall intubation success using VL versus DL were a risk ratio (RR) of 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.18) in studies of physicians and RR = 2.28 (95% CI = 1.00–5.20) in nonphysicians. For first‐pass intubation success the pooled RR estimates for using VL versus DL were 0.32 (95% CI = 0.23–0.44) and 1.83 (95% CI = 1.18–2.84) among studies using physicians and nonphysicians, respectively. There was moderate to significant heterogeneity between studies when stratified by provider. Conclusions Among physician intubators with significant DL experience, VL does not increase overall or first‐pass success rates and may lead to worsening performance. However, among nonphysician intubators with less experience with DL, VL may provide benefit in the prehospital setting.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1069-6563</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1553-2712</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/acem.13193</identifier><identifier>PMID: 28370736</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Emergency medical care ; Evidence-based medicine ; Humans ; Intubation ; Intubation, Intratracheal - methods ; Laryngoscopes ; Laryngoscopy ; Laryngoscopy - methods ; Meta-analysis ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Systematic review ; Treatment Outcome</subject><ispartof>Academic emergency medicine, 2017-08, Vol.24 (8), p.1018-1026</ispartof><rights>2017 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine</rights><rights>2017 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3933-859320cbc865c5ab20d9dd74fcc87b11925c554057c2c5f96a4200f5b3bb070f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3933-859320cbc865c5ab20d9dd74fcc87b11925c554057c2c5f96a4200f5b3bb070f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Facem.13193$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Facem.13193$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,1427,27901,27902,45550,45551,46384,46808</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28370736$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Savino, P. Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichelderfer, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mercer, Mary P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Ralph C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sporer, Karl A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miner, James R.</creatorcontrib><title>Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis</title><title>Academic emergency medicine</title><addtitle>Acad Emerg Med</addtitle><description>Objectives The use of video laryngoscopy (VL) for intubation has gained recent popularity. In the prehospital setting, it is unclear if VL increases intubation success rates compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL). We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies comparing VL to DL in the prehospital setting to determine whether the use of VL increases overall and first‐pass endotracheal intubation success rates compared to DL. Methods A systematic search was performed of the PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS databases through May 2016 to include studies comparing overall and first‐pass success for VL versus DL in patients requiring intubation in the prehospital setting. Data were ed by two reviewers. A meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model. Results Of a potential 472 articles, eight eligible studies were included. Considerable heterogeneity (I2 &gt; 90%) precluded reporting an overall pooled estimate across all studies. When stratified by provider type, the pooled estimates for overall intubation success using VL versus DL were a risk ratio (RR) of 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.18) in studies of physicians and RR = 2.28 (95% CI = 1.00–5.20) in nonphysicians. For first‐pass intubation success the pooled RR estimates for using VL versus DL were 0.32 (95% CI = 0.23–0.44) and 1.83 (95% CI = 1.18–2.84) among studies using physicians and nonphysicians, respectively. There was moderate to significant heterogeneity between studies when stratified by provider. Conclusions Among physician intubators with significant DL experience, VL does not increase overall or first‐pass success rates and may lead to worsening performance. However, among nonphysician intubators with less experience with DL, VL may provide benefit in the prehospital setting.</description><subject>Emergency medical care</subject><subject>Evidence-based medicine</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intubation</subject><subject>Intubation, Intratracheal - methods</subject><subject>Laryngoscopes</subject><subject>Laryngoscopy</subject><subject>Laryngoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Treatment Outcome</subject><issn>1069-6563</issn><issn>1553-2712</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMlOwzAQhi0EomwXHgBZ4oKQUrzUccytKmWRikAsvUaO44BREhc7ocqNR-AZeRJcWjhwYC4ztj79mvkA2Meoj0OdSKWrPqZY0DWwhRmjEeGYrIcZxSKKWUx7YNv7F4QQ44Jvgh5JKEecxlsgPzNOqwZOtfOth1OTawsn0nX1k_XKzjpYWAdvnX62fmYaWcKrumkz2Rhbn8IhvO98o6vwVPBOvxk9h7LO4bVu5Of7h6xl2Xnjd8FGIUuv91Z9Bzyejx9Gl9Hk5uJqNJxEigpKo4QJSpDKVBIzxWRGUC7ynA8KpRKeYSxI-GaDcIQiihUilgOCUMEymmWIo4LugKNl7szZ11b7Jq2MV7osZa1t61OcJAMcC0xEQA__oC-2dWHfQAnCGeEoRoE6XlLKWe-dLtKZM1Wwk2KULtynC_fpt_sAH6wi26zS-S_6IzsAeAnMTam7f6LS4Wh8vQz9AqSNjw0</recordid><startdate>201708</startdate><enddate>201708</enddate><creator>Savino, P. Brian</creator><creator>Reichelderfer, Scott</creator><creator>Mercer, Mary P.</creator><creator>Wang, Ralph C.</creator><creator>Sporer, Karl A.</creator><creator>Miner, James R.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201708</creationdate><title>Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis</title><author>Savino, P. Brian ; Reichelderfer, Scott ; Mercer, Mary P. ; Wang, Ralph C. ; Sporer, Karl A. ; Miner, James R.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3933-859320cbc865c5ab20d9dd74fcc87b11925c554057c2c5f96a4200f5b3bb070f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Emergency medical care</topic><topic>Evidence-based medicine</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intubation</topic><topic>Intubation, Intratracheal - methods</topic><topic>Laryngoscopes</topic><topic>Laryngoscopy</topic><topic>Laryngoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Treatment Outcome</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Savino, P. Brian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Reichelderfer, Scott</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Mercer, Mary P.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Ralph C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sporer, Karl A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Miner, James R.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Academic emergency medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Savino, P. Brian</au><au>Reichelderfer, Scott</au><au>Mercer, Mary P.</au><au>Wang, Ralph C.</au><au>Sporer, Karl A.</au><au>Miner, James R.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis</atitle><jtitle>Academic emergency medicine</jtitle><addtitle>Acad Emerg Med</addtitle><date>2017-08</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>8</issue><spage>1018</spage><epage>1026</epage><pages>1018-1026</pages><issn>1069-6563</issn><eissn>1553-2712</eissn><abstract>Objectives The use of video laryngoscopy (VL) for intubation has gained recent popularity. In the prehospital setting, it is unclear if VL increases intubation success rates compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL). We sought to conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of studies comparing VL to DL in the prehospital setting to determine whether the use of VL increases overall and first‐pass endotracheal intubation success rates compared to DL. Methods A systematic search was performed of the PubMed, Embase, and SCOPUS databases through May 2016 to include studies comparing overall and first‐pass success for VL versus DL in patients requiring intubation in the prehospital setting. Data were ed by two reviewers. A meta‐analysis was performed using a random‐effects model. Results Of a potential 472 articles, eight eligible studies were included. Considerable heterogeneity (I2 &gt; 90%) precluded reporting an overall pooled estimate across all studies. When stratified by provider type, the pooled estimates for overall intubation success using VL versus DL were a risk ratio (RR) of 0.05 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01–0.18) in studies of physicians and RR = 2.28 (95% CI = 1.00–5.20) in nonphysicians. For first‐pass intubation success the pooled RR estimates for using VL versus DL were 0.32 (95% CI = 0.23–0.44) and 1.83 (95% CI = 1.18–2.84) among studies using physicians and nonphysicians, respectively. There was moderate to significant heterogeneity between studies when stratified by provider. Conclusions Among physician intubators with significant DL experience, VL does not increase overall or first‐pass success rates and may lead to worsening performance. However, among nonphysician intubators with less experience with DL, VL may provide benefit in the prehospital setting.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>28370736</pmid><doi>10.1111/acem.13193</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1069-6563
ispartof Academic emergency medicine, 2017-08, Vol.24 (8), p.1018-1026
issn 1069-6563
1553-2712
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1884169129
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Free Content; Wiley Online Library All Journals; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Emergency medical care
Evidence-based medicine
Humans
Intubation
Intubation, Intratracheal - methods
Laryngoscopes
Laryngoscopy
Laryngoscopy - methods
Meta-analysis
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Systematic review
Treatment Outcome
title Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy for Prehospital Intubation: A Systematic Review and Meta‐analysis
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-01T10%3A54%3A41IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Direct%20Versus%20Video%20Laryngoscopy%20for%20Prehospital%20Intubation:%20A%20Systematic%20Review%20and%20Meta%E2%80%90analysis&rft.jtitle=Academic%20emergency%20medicine&rft.au=Savino,%20P.%20Brian&rft.date=2017-08&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=1018&rft.epage=1026&rft.pages=1018-1026&rft.issn=1069-6563&rft.eissn=1553-2712&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/acem.13193&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1927527060%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1927527060&rft_id=info:pmid/28370736&rfr_iscdi=true