Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful emergency endotracheal intubations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Abstract

Abstract Background Intubating a patient in an emergent setting presents significant challenges compared to planned intubation in an operating room. This study aims to compare video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful endotracheal intubation on the first attempt in emergency intubations, irrespective of the clinical setting. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until 27 February 2023. We included only randomized controlled trials that included patients who had undergone emergent endotracheal intubation for any indication, regardless of the clinical setting. We used the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2 (ROB2) to assess the included studies. We used the mean difference (MD) and risk ratio (RR), with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI), to pool the continuous and dichotomous variables, respectively. Results Fourteen studies were included with a total of 2470 patients. The overall analysis favored video laryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy in first-attempt success rate (RR = 1.09, 95% CI [1.02, 1.18], P = 0.02), first-attempt intubation time (MD = − 6.92, 95% CI [− 12.86, − 0.99], P = 0.02), intubation difficulty score (MD = − 0.62, 95% CI [− 0.86, − 0.37], P 0.05). Conclusion In emergency intubations, video laryngoscopy is preferred to direct laryngoscopy in achieving successful intubation on the first attempt and was associated with a lower incidence of complications.

Keywords

• Direct laryngoscope
• Emergent intubation
• Emergent airway
• Endotracheal intubation
• First-attempt success
• Video laryngoscopy