+ 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

Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation



Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation



Resuscitation 89: 195-199



Tracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a high-risk procedure. Here, we investigated the efficacy of video laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation during CPR. Data regarding tracheal intubation during CPR from in-hospital cardiac arrests occurring between January 2011 and December 2013 (n=229) were prospectively collected and retrospectively analyzed. The initial laryngoscopy method was video laryngoscopy in 121 patients (52.8%) and direct laryngoscopy in 108 patients (47.2%). The rate of successful intubation at the first attempt was higher with video laryngoscopy (71.9%; 87/121) than with direct laryngoscopy (52.8%; 57/108; p=0.003). The rate of success at the first attempt was higher for experienced (73.0%; 84/115) than inexperienced operators, including residents (52.6%; 60/114; p=0.001). Mortality at day 28 after CPR was not significantly different between patients with successful tracheal intubation at the first attempt and without (68.1% [98/144] vs. 67.1% [57/85]; p=0.876). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, a predicted difficult airway (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]=0.22 [0.10-0.49]; p<0.001), intubation by an experienced operator (2.63 [1.42-4.87]; p=0.002), and use of video laryngoscopy rather than direct laryngoscopy (2.42 [1.30-4.45]; p=0.005) were independently associated with a successful tracheal intubation at the first attempt. Use of video laryngoscopy during CPR from in-hospital cardiac arrest is independently associated with successful tracheal intubation at the first attempt.

Please choose payment method:






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

Accession: 059241792

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 25541431

DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2014.11.030


Related references

Video laryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy: Which should be chosen for endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation? A prospective randomized controlled study of experienced intubators. Resuscitation 105: 196-202, 2016

Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for first-attempt tracheal intubation in the general ward. Annals of Intensive Care 8(1): 83, 2018

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

Direct laryngoscopy or C-MAC video laryngoscopy? Routine tracheal intubation in patients undergoing ENT surgery. Der Anaesthesist 59(9): 806-811, 2010

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

Expected difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective comparison of direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy in 200 patients. British Journal of Anaesthesia 102(4): 546-550, 2009

Does Video Laryngoscopy Offer Advantages over Direct Laryngoscopy during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation?. Turkish Journal of Anaesthesiology and Reanimation 43(4): 263-268, 2015

Comparing video and direct laryngoscopy for intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 136: 146-147, 2019

Videolaryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy for child tracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. American Journal of Emergency Medicine 34(12): 2453, 2016

Just-in-Time Video Laryngoscopy Versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Neonatal Intubation. Journal of Perinatal and Neonatal Nursing 30(4): 367-371, 2016

A comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department. Academic Emergency Medicine 16(9): 866-871, 2009

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

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

Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for double-lumen endotracheal tube intubation: a retrospective analysis. Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia 26(5): 845-848, 2012

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