4.5 Article

Changing the view: Video versus direct laryngoscopy for intubation in the pediatric emergency department

Journal

MEDICINE
Volume 99, Issue 38, Pages -

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022289

Keywords

emergency medicine; laryngoscope; laryngoscopy; pediatrics; tracheal intubation

Funding

  1. Emergency Department of Instituto da Crianca do Hospital das Clinicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Sao Paulo

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to compare the success of first-attempt tracheal intubation in pediatric patients >1-year old performed using video versus direct laryngoscopy and compare the frequency of tracheal intubation-associated events and desaturation among these patients. Prospective observational cohort study conducted in an Academic pediatric tertiary emergency department. We compared 50 children intubated with Mcgrath Mac video laryngoscope (VL group) and an historical series of 141 children intubated with direct laryngoscopy (DL group). All patients were aged 1 to 18 years. The first attempt success rates were 68% (34/50) and 37.6% (53/141) in the VL and DL groups (P < .01), respectively. There was a lower proportion of tracheal intubation-associated events in the VL group (VL, 31.3% [15/50] vs DL, 67.8% [97/141];P < .01) and no significant differences in desaturation (VL, 35% [14/50] vs DL 51.8% [72/141];P = .06). The median number of attempts was 1 (range, 1-5) for the VL group and 2 (range, 1-8) for the DL group (P < .01). Multivariate logistic regression showed that video laryngoscope use was associated with higher chances of first-attempt intubation with an odds ratio of 4.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-10.4,P < 0.01). Compared with direct laryngoscopy, VL was associated with higher success rates of first-attempt tracheal intubations and lower rates of tracheal intubation-associated events.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available