Evidence Hub

Video versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

B. Araújo, André Rivera, Suzany Martins, Renatha Abreu, Paula Cassa, Maicon Silva, Alice Gallo de Moraes

Critical Care, 2024

3,981 participants · 59 citations

Abstract

Background The utilization of video laryngoscopy (VL) has demonstrated superiority over direct laryngoscopy (DL) for intubation in surgical settings. However, its effectiveness in the intensive care unit and emergency department settings remains uncertain. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VL versus DL in critically ill patients. Critical setting was defined as emergency department and intensive care unit. This systematic review and meta-analysis followed Cochrane and PRISMA recommendations. R version 4.3.1 was used for statistical analysis and heterogeneity was examined with I^2 statistics. All outcomes were submitted to random-effect models. Results Our meta-analysis of 14 RCTs, compromising 3981 patients assigned to VL ( n = 2002) or DL ( n = 1979). Compared with DL, VL significantly increased successful intubations on the first attempt (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04–1.20; p < 0.01; I ^2 = 82%). Regarding adverse events, VL reduced the number of esophageal intubations (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.24–0.80; p < 0.01; I ^2 = 0%) and incidence of aspiration episodes (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.41–0.96; p = 0.03; I ^2 = 0%) compared to DL. Conclusion VL is a more effective and safer strategy compared with DL for increasing successful intubations on the first attempt and reducing esophageal intubations in critically ill patients. Our findings support the routine use of VL in critically ill…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 3,981 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free