+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department



A comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department



Academic Emergency Medicine 16(9): 866-871



The first-attempt success rate of intubation was compared using GlideScope video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in an emergency department (ED). A prospective observational study was conducted of adult patients undergoing intubation in the ED of a Level 1 trauma center with an emergency medicine residency program. Patients were consecutively enrolled between August 2006 and February 2008. Data collected included indication for intubation, patient characteristics, device used, initial oxygen saturation, and resident postgraduate year. The primary outcome measure was success with first attempt. Secondary outcome measures included time to successful intubation, intubation failure, and lowest oxygen saturation levels. An attempt was defined as the introduction of the laryngoscope into the mouth. Failure was defined as an esophageal intubation, changing to a different device or physician, or inability to place the endotracheal tube after three attempts. A total of 280 patients were enrolled, of whom video laryngoscopy was used for the initial intubation attempt in 63 (22%) and direct laryngoscopy was used in 217 (78%). Reasons for intubation included altered mental status (64%), respiratory distress (47%), facial trauma (9%), and immobilization for imaging (9%). Overall, 233 (83%) intubations were successful on the first attempt, 26 (9%) failures occurred, and one patient received a cricothyrotomy. The first-attempt success rate was 51 of 63 (81%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 70% to 89%) for video laryngoscopy versus 182 of 217 (84%, 95% CI = 79% to 88%) for direct laryngoscopy (p = 0.59). Median time to successful intubation was 42 seconds (range, 13 to 350 seconds) for video laryngoscopy versus 30 seconds (range, 11 to 600 seconds) for direct laryngoscopy (p < 0.01). Rates of successful intubation on first attempt were not significantly different between video and direct laryngoscopy. However, intubation using video laryngoscopy required significantly more time to complete.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 051109480

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 19664096

DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00492.x


Related references

Comparison of GlideScope Video Laryngoscopy to Direct Laryngoscopy for Intubation of Pediatric Patients in the Emergency Department. Annals of Emergency Medicine 62(4): S75-S76, 2013

Tracheal intubation in the emergency department: a comparison of GlideScope® video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy in 822 intubations. Journal of Emergency Medicine 42(4): 400-405, 2012

Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for intubation in emergency department patients with cardiac arrest: A multicentre study. Resuscitation 136: 70-77, 2019

GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis. Bmj Open 5(5): E007884, 2015

Comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of patients with difficult airway characteristics in the emergency department. Internal and Emergency Medicine 9(1): 93-98, 2014

Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia 59(1): 41-52, 2012

Comparison of GlideScope Video Laryngoscopy and Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation in Neonates. Anesthesia and Analgesia 129(2): 482-486, 2019

A comparison between video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 47: 21-26, 2018

A comparison between video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in the emergency department: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 47: 21-26, 2018

First-Attempt Intubation Success of Video Laryngoscopy in Patients with Anticipated Difficult Direct Laryngoscopy: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the C-MAC D-Blade Versus the GlideScope in a Mixed Provider and Diverse Patient Population. Anesthesia and Analgesia 122(3): 740-750, 2016

A comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for the emergency intubation of trauma patients. World Journal of Surgery 39(3): 782-788, 2015

Learning curves for direct laryngoscopy and GlideScope® video laryngoscopy in an emergency medicine residency. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine 15(7): 930-937, 2014

A comparison between the GlideScope® classic and GlideScope® direct video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation. Journal of Clinical Anesthesia 33: 330-336, 2016

Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial. Critical Care Medicine 43(3): 636-641, 2015

Comparison of intubation success of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the difficult airway using high-fidelity simulation. Simulation in Healthcare 4(3): 160-165, 2009