https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-8430
Figures
Abstract
This study aimed to describe how video laryngoscopy is used outside the operating room within the hospital setting. Specifically, we aimed to summarise the evidence for the use of video laryngoscopy outside the operating room, and detail how it appears in current clinical practice guidelines. A literature search was conducted across two databases (MEDLINE and Embase), and all articles underwent screening for relevance to our aims and pre-determined exclusion criteria. Our results include 14 clinical practice guidelines, 12 interventional studies, 38 observational studies. Our results show that video laryngoscopy is likely to improve glottic view and decrease the incidence of oesophageal intubations; however, it remains unclear as to how this contributes to first-pass success, overall intubation success and clinical outcomes such as mortality outside the operating room. Furthermore, our results indicate that the appearance of video laryngoscopy in clinical practice guidelines has increased in recent years, and particularly through the COVID-19 pandemic. Current COVID-19 airway management guidelines unanimously introduce video laryngoscopy as a first-line (rather than rescue) device.
Citation: Perkins EJ, Begley JL, Brewster FM, Hanegbi ND, Ilancheran AA, Brewster DJ (2022) The use of video laryngoscopy outside the operating room: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 17(10): e0276420. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276420
Editor: Chiara Lazzeri, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Careggi, ITALY
Received: June 14, 2022; Accepted: September 12, 2022; Published: October 20, 2022
Copyright: © 2022 Perkins et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Tracheal intubation occurring outside the operating room (OR) typically involves a critically unwell patient. These intubations occur predominantly in the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU), but may also involve a deteriorating patient on a hospital ward. Intubation outside the OR presents greater difficulty to the airway, with a significantly increased incidence of adverse events and risks to patient safety [1, 2]. Reasons for this include availability of skilled staff in an emergency, case mix and working environment [3]. In the recent INTUBE study, 45.2% of intubations outside the OR experienced at least 1 major adverse peri-intubation event and over 3% were complicated by cardiac arrest [2].
First-pass intubation success is particularly important in the critically ill and is associated with improved hospital survival in this group [2]. As the number of intubation attempts increases, so too does the incidence of adverse events and hospital mortality [2, 4]. As such, every effort should be made to maximise first-pass intubation success outside the OR. Strategies to increase first-pass success include choice of an experienced clinician (such as a consultant anaesthetist), positioning, adequate muscle relaxation, and use of equipment [5–7]. Specifically, airway operators must consider whether to use direct laryngoscopy (DL) or video laryngoscopy (VL). VL displays the glottis on an external monitor via a camera attached to the device blade, without requiring alignment of the oral-pharyngeal-tracheal axes. Furthermore, because the glottis is displayed on an external monitor, VL allows supervising clinicians real-time view, allowing them to provide tailored guidance to trainees [8, 9]. Historically, VL is often referred to in difficult airway management algorithms as a powerful rescue tool to be employed when initial intubation attempts are unsuccessful [10, 11]. Recently, the use of VL has increased, which is likely due to multiple factors including the improved glottic view that VL offers compared to DL, and its increased availability and affordability [12, 13]. There has also been an increase in the uptake of VL during the COVID-19 pandemic, with many airway management guidelines now recommending VL as a first line (rather than rescue) device [6, 7, 13]. Within the OR, it has been found that VL may reduce the number of failed intubations, particularly among patients presenting with a difficult airway [14]. However, there has been conflicting results of early VL studies outside OR. There is no current consensus on the use of VL outside the OR; specifically, whether it should be used ahead of DL, whether it is best used by trainees, consultants or both, and what benefit to patient outcomes it may offer. Existing systematic reviews on the use of VL were conducted prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and do not evaluate the most recent evidence on the use of VL outside the OR.
This study was designed to conduct an up-to-date review of the existing literature on how VL is used outside the OR. Specifically, it aims to (1) search for and summarise the recent evidence for the use of VL outside the OR and (2) describe how VL appears in current clinical practice guidelines for airway management outside the OR.
Materials and methods
A structured literature search adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) recommendations and was registered with PROSPERO [15]. A search was conducted across two databases (MEDLINE and Embase) on September 8, 2021, looking at the use of VL outside the OR. Keywords searched were “laryngoscopy” + “video recording”, “video laryngoscopy”, “video assisted laryngoscopy”, “penta airway”, “king vision” or “mcgrath mac”, in conjunction with “intensive care units”, “critical illness”, “ICU(s)”, “emergency department”, “emergency service/hospital” or “critically ill”. Pre-defined exclusion criteria were studies not in English, not in ED/ICU/ward based/critically ill settings, pre-hospital settings, simulation studies, involving students, conference abstracts only, commentary/editorials or neonatal/paediatric papers. Furthermore, articles were limited to those published between 1 January 2011–8 September 2021.
All resulting references underwent title and abstract screening using Covidence software (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria). Articles were initially screened by a single author, and any articles that were not clearly able to be included or excluded were then discussed amongst the team of authors. Full texts were then extracted and screened by two authors for relevance to pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria (Fig 1).
Both clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements (for both intubation and advanced life support/cardiopulmonary resuscitation) were included. This yielded both primary and secondary research papers discussing the use of VL outside the OR (ED, ICU and ward-based setting). As this is a review article, we limited citations of other review articles or meta-analyses to the introduction and discussion and only primary data was used in our descriptive analysis.
Clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements were identified and tabulated (Table 1). Articles discussing the use of VL outside the OR were identified and tabulated separately, with Table 2 detailing interventional studies and Table 3 detailing observational studies. Descriptive analysis was performed to assess how VL is used outside the OR, what the evidence is for its use outside the OR and the appearance of VL in current clinical practice guidelines. The quality of included papers was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP 2018) and the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) [16, 17].
Results
Search results
Following duplicate removal, our search generated 890 articles. Articles then underwent title and abstract screening and full text screening for relevance to our aims and exclusion criteria. This yielded a total of 64 articles to be included in our review. Guidelines not intended for use outside the OR, or guidelines that did not make mention of VL, were excluded. The 64 papers included 14 clinical practice guidelines or consensus statements (Table 1), 12 interventional studies including RCTs (Table 2) and 38 observational studies on the use of VL outside the OR (Table 3).
Quality assessment
The quality of the included studies was primarily assessed used CASP tool [16]. Cross-sectional studies were assessed using the MERSQI tool [17]. Overall, the quality of included research was found to be low-moderate.
Included airway guidelines
Guidelines were published from a range of countries as shown in Table 1. Table 1 also details data on society/expert group endorsement of the guidelines, methodology for guideline development, intended patient group, recommendations, and evidence base.
How is VL mentioned within guidelines?
Safe Airway Society guidelines for airway management of COVID-19 patients from Australia and New Zealand were the first to recommend VL as the first line device in COVID-19 patients when the airway operator is proficient in its use [6]. The Macintosh video laryngoscope and the hyperangulated video laryngoscope are the two types of VL referenced in this guideline. Guidelines from Cook et al. 2020, which come from consensus among Difficult Airway Society, the Association of Anaesthetists of the Intensive Care Society, and Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal College of Anaesthetists, recommended that laryngoscopy be undertaken with the device that is most likely to achieve prompt first-pass success in patients with COVID-19 [7]. This guideline states that in most fully trained airway professionals, this is likely to be VL. Guidelines from Nasa et al. 2021, recommend considering VL for intubation of COVID-19 [22]. The guideline does not discuss a specific type of VL. Guidelines from Sharma et al. 2020, which are intended for use in COVID-19 patients requiring emergency endovascular treatment, state that VL should be used for intubation [26]. Guidelines from Nolan et al. 2020 and Singh et al. 2020 are specifically recommended for COVID-19 patients requiring cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Both of these guidelines state that VL should be used if the airway operator is familiar with its use [23, 27]. CPR guidelines from Barati et al. 2020 also recommend that intubation performed during CPR should be done with VL if possible [19]. Piepho et al. 2015 recommended that VL be used as an “alternative strategy” for management of an unexpectedly difficult airway [10]. All other included guidelines recommended early use of VL or the use of VL, rather than only as a rescue device.
Non-guideline research papers on VL
Articles were published from a broad range of countries, with settings including one or multiple of ED, ICU and ward-based settings (see Tables 2 and 3). A majority of the included non-guideline papers were relevant to an ED setting (60%) [4, 9, 29, 32, 33, 35, 39, 41, 42, 44–54, 60, 62, 64, 66–70, 75, 76]. There were 21 included non-guideline papers (42%) which were relevant to an ICU setting [28, 30, 34, 36–38, 40, 43, 53, 55–59, 61, 63, 65, 71–74]. The most common patient group was critically ill. Included papers were heterogeneous in terms of airway operator(s) discussed or investigated in the research. Our results include both interventional studies (Table 2) and observational studies (Table 3). Observational studies were the most common (38/50, 76%). Type of VL discussed was also varied, and included Mcgrath MAC, GlideScope, C-MAC (standard balde, D-blade or straight blade), Airtraq, WuScope, AWS, Bullard, Lightward, Karl Storz Video Macintosh Laryngoscope, Stroz C-MAC, V-MAC, flexible fibre optics, hyperangulated VL, standard geometry VL, Olympus, Clarus video system, Truview, Med. Adult type Video Laryngoscope, King Vision, UEScope, Airway Scope, Ambu-Pentax and VividTrac.
There were several different outcomes assessed across the 50 included non-guideline papers. Outcomes included first-pass intubation success, overall intubation success, severe complications of intubation, oesophageal intubation rates, glottic view, frequency of VL use, incidence of difficult intubation and clinical outcomes including hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality. If outcomes were associated with a statistically significant p-value, this is shown in Tables 2 / 3 for interventional and observational studies respectively.
First-pass success.
First-pass success was an outcome measure in 30/50 (60%) of included papers [4, 9, 29, 30, 34, 38, 40, 41, 45–52, 54, 56–60, 63–68, 70, 74]. There were 23 papers that directly compared VL and DL in terms of first-pass success. VL was found to be superior to DL in terms of first-pass intubation success in 13/23 (56.5%) of these studies [9, 38, 40, 41, 45, 46, 56, 57, 59, 63, 65, 67, 68]. There was no significant difference between VL and DL in terms of first-pass intubation success in 11/23 (47.8%) of these studies [9, 29, 30, 34, 37, 47–50, 54, 60]. Weng et al. (2020) found that first-pass success was improved with VL compared to DL among non-attending emergency physicians, but not amongst attending emergency physicians and hence is included in both groups here [9].
Overall intubation success.
Overall intubation success rate was a measured outcome in four of the included studies, with none of these reporting a difference in overall intubation success using VL compared to DL [35, 62, 63, 67].
Glottic view.
There were 8 included studies that assessed glottic view as an outcome measure. Of these, 7/8 (87.5%) report that VL is associated with improved glottic view compared to DL [31, 34, 42, 44, 54, 65, 66]. Carlson et al. reported that there was no difference in glottic view when using VL compared to DL [47].
Oesophageal intubation rate.
There were 4 studies that looked at rate of oesophageal intubations, with 100% of these reporting less oesophageal intubations with VL compared to with DL [36, 63, 66, 67].
Incidence of difficult intubation.
Difficult intubation was an outcome measure in 2 of the included studies, both of which found that the incidence of difficult intubation was less with VL compared to DL [28, 36].
Frequency of VL use.
There were 10 included studies that report on the frequency of VL use [32, 42, 43, 48, 53, 55, 61, 71–73]. Aziz et al. (2013) reports that the frequency of VL use is growing, as the device is becoming more affordable and more readily available [42]. Results from Brewster et al. (2021), Groombridge (2021) and Hawkins (2021) all suggest that the use of VL has increased with the COVID-19 pandemic [32, 43, 55]. In contrast, Green et al. (2017) and Seisa et al (2018) report that DL remains a more commonly used airway device [53, 71].
Complications of intubation.
There were eight included studies that discussed complications of intubation using VL. Overall, the results of these studies were varied. Four (50%) of these studies found that there was a difference between VL and DL in terms of complication rates [37, 39, 40, 57], whereas four (50%) did not [28, 29, 34, 35].
Clinical outcomes.
Clinical outcomes including hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality rates were measured in only three included studies. There was no statistically significant difference in hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality or overall mortality found in these studies [29, 31, 34].
Discussion
This study aimed to provide an up-to-date review of the role of VL in intubation of the critically ill outside the OR. We identified 64 research papers from the past 10 years on the use of VL outside the OR, including 14 clinical practice guidelines.
In terms of first-pass success, some of our included papers (n = 13) showed increased first pass success with VL compared to DL; however, a similar number of papers (n = 11) showed no difference in first-pass success between VL and DL. Weng et al. (2020) found that VL was associated with improved first past success amongst non-attending physicians, but this difference was not seen amongst attending physicians [9]. This suggests that the usefulness of VL in helping to achieve first pass success may be operator dependent. This finding is in keeping with the existing literature, with a review article and meta-analysis from Arulkumaran et al. (2018) demonstrating that first-pass success was increased when VL was used in ICU and amongst novice/trainee clinicians [8]. Furthermore, a review article from Howson et al. (2020) also showed that first-pass success was higher with VL compared to DL in junior operators, but the difference was not seen amongst senior operators [77].
Although some results suggest that VL may improve first-pass intubation success, our results indicate that VL is yet to be shown to improve overall intubation success. We found that VL is likely to improve glottic view, and reduce the incidence of oesophageal intubations; however, the degree to which this view is improved and how this improves clinical outcomes remains unclear. Further research is required to directly determine this.
Most worthy of discussion when reflecting on both first pass success and improved glottic view with VL is the type of VL blade used. There has been a move in recent years towards a Macintosh blade by most VL manufacturers, with an increased focus on the use VL with a hyperangulated blade (HAVL). The papers included in this study have a heterogenous group of video laryngoscopes and blades. HAVL may indeed further improve glottic view, but first-pass success may differ depending on the volume of practice and training in HAVL by the operator [43, 78]. Future research should focus on these outcomes with the use of VL, whilst drawing a distinction between conventional VL blades and HAVL, as well as the use of HAVL in novice versus experienced operator hands.
Our results show that the frequency of VL use outside the OR appears to be increasing in recent years, and particularly through the COVID-19 pandemic. This may be due to VL becoming more affordable and more readily available in both the ICU and ED. Although the exact frequency of VL use outside the OR is uncertain, some studies in our review suggest that the frequency of VL use has increased dramatically during the COVID-19 pandemic [2]. This is likely in response to published clinical practice guidelines on airway management for COVID-19 patients outside the OR unanimously supporting the use of VL in COVID-19 patients, and the perception of safety presented by the increased distance between the airway operator and the patient that VL offers [6]. However, as the COVID-19 pandemic has evolved, we have learnt that the virus is transmitted more by aerosols than my contact, so increased distance between the patient’s airway and the airway operator is perhaps less protective than initially thought. Furthermore, VL is recognised as a powerful training tool, as it allows a supervisor to view to airway in real time and provide real time guidance to a trainee airway operator [9].
Our results were varied in terms of the impact of VL on complications of intubation. Some studies showed that complications such as severe hypoxemia were lower when VL was used, whilst others showed that this complication actually increased with the use of VL. There were 3 studies that looked at clinical outcomes for patients including hospital length of stay and in-hospital mortality rates. There was no statistically significant difference in hospital length of stay, in-hospital mortality or overall mortality found in our included studies. However, the recently published INTUBE study has since also demonstrated an increased likelihood or first-pass success through the use of VL outside the OR [2]. This success correlated with a reduced primary adverse event outcome, being a composite outcome measure that included cardiovascular instability (42.6%), severe hypoxemia (9.3%) and cardiac arrest in 3.1%. Patients in that study with a primary adverse event had an increased hospital mortality (40.7% vs 26.3%) [2]. This should prompt ongoing research to look at specific patient outcomes associated with the use of VL in this patient group.
The primary limitation of this paper is the heterogenous nature of the included papers. Research varied in terms of country of publication, setting, patient group, airway operator(s), study design and type of VL assessed. Specifically, observational studies are analysed alongside RCTs and other interventional studies, which limits the strength of our conclusions. Outcome measures also varied significantly. Most included studies are observational and have a small sample size. In addition, most of the included clinical practice guidelines do not provide a detailed description of their evidence base, or their methodology for guideline development. They also do not describe the use of the same VL manufacturer or blade type. Limited research has been described specifically on the use and benefit of HAVL in this group.
Conclusion
Ultimately, our results suggest that the use of VL outside the OR has increased in recent years, and particularly through the COVID-19 pandemic. The early use of VL is recommended in most published clinical practice guidelines and is unanimously recommended for management of COVID-19 intubations. It appears that VL is likely to improve glottic view and decrease incidence of oesophageal intubations; however, it remains unclear as to how this contributes to first-pass success. Within the limitations of our research, we found that VL has yet to show significant improvement in overall intubation success or clinical outcomes such as mortality outside the OR. More directed research is required to further characterise the use of VL outside the OR, the type of blade used and the clinical outcomes associated with its use.
References
- 1. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C. Major complications of airway management in the UK: Results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: Anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(5):617–31. pmid:21447488
- 2. Russotto V, Myatra SN, Laffey JG, Tassistro E, Antolini L, Bauer P, et al. Intubation Practices and Adverse Peri-intubation Events in Critically Ill Patients from 29 Countries. JAMA—Journal of the American Medical Association. 2021 Mar 23;325(12):1164–72. pmid:33755076
- 3. Cook TM, Woodall N, Harper J, Benger J. Major complications of airway management in the UK: Results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 2: Intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106(5):632–42. pmid:21447489
- 4. Sakles JC, Mosier J, Patanwala AE, Dicken J. Improvement in GlideScope® Video Laryngoscopy performance over a seven-year period in an academic emergency department. Intern Emerg Med. 2014 Oct 2;9(7):789–94. pmid:25164411
- 5.
Edelman DA, Perkins EJ, Brewster DJ. Difficult airway management algorithms: a directed review. Vol. 74, Anaesthesia. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2019. p. 1175–85.
- 6. Brewster DJ, Chrimes N, Do TBT, Fraser K, Groombridge CJ, Higgs A, et al. Consensus statement: Safe Airway Society principles of airway management and tracheal intubation specific to the COVID-19 adult patient group. Medical Journal of Australia. 2020 Jun 1;212(10):472–81. pmid:32356900
- 7. Cook TM, El-Boghdadly K, McGuire B, McNarry AF, Patel A, Higgs A. Consensus guidelines for managing the airway in patients with COVID-19: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society, the Association of Anaesthetists the Intensive Care Society, the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal College of Anaesthetists. Anaesthesia. 2020 Jun 1;75(6):785–99. pmid:32221970
- 8. Arulkumaran N, Lowe J, Ions R, Mendoza M, Bennett V, Dunser MW. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for emergency orotracheal intubation outside the operating room: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vol. 120, British Journal of Anaesthesia. Elsevier Ltd; 2018. p. 712–24. pmid:29576112
- 9. Weng WP, Zakaria NDB, Gek Ching S, Wong E. Does video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy affect first-pass success rates for intubation among attending and non-attending emergency physicians in the emergency department? Hong Kong Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2021 Sep 1;28(5):285–90.
- 10. Piepho T, Cavus E, Noppens R, Byhahn C, Dörges V, Zwissler B, et al. S1 guidelines on airway management—Guideline of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Anaesthesist. 2015 Dec 1;64:27–40.
- 11.
Sharrock MF, Rosenblatt K. Acute Airway Management and Ventilation in the Neurocritical Care Unit. In: Current Clinical Neurology. Humana Press Inc.; 2020. p. 31–47.
- 12.
Scott JA, Heard SO, Zayaruzny M, Walz JM. Airway Management in Critical Illness: An Update. Vol. 157, Chest. Elsevier Inc; 2020. p. 877–87.
- 13. Myatra SN, Ahmed SM, Kundra P, Garg R, Ramkumar V, Patwa A, et al. Republication: All India difficult airway association 2016 guidelines for tracheal intubation in the intensive care unit. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine. 2017 Mar 1;21(3):146–53. pmid:28400685
- 14.
Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation. Vol. 2016, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2016.
- 15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339. pmid:19622552
- 16.
CASP Checklists. CASP UK. 2018. https://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/
- 17. Cook DA, Reed DA. Appraising the Quality of Medical Education Research Methods. Academic Medicine. 2015 Aug;90(8):1067–76.
- 18. Apfelbaum JL HCCR et al. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anaesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anaesthesiology. 2013;118:251–70.
- 19. Barati S, Garjani K, Payandemehr P, Totonchi Z, Zanganehfar M, Sadeghipour P, et al. Iranian heart association task force on cardiopulmonary resuscitation guidelines on the COVID-19 outbreak. Res Cardiovasc Med. 2020;9(1):3.
- 20. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, Mendonca C, Bhagrath R, Patel A, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015 Dec 1;115(6):827–48. pmid:26556848
- 21. Higgs A, McGrath BA, Goddard C, Rangasami J, Suntharalingham G, Gale R, et al. Guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults. Vol. 120, British Journal of Anaesthesia. Elsevier Ltd; 2018. p. 207–9.
- 22. Nasa P, Azoulay E, Khanna AK, Jain R, Gupta S, Javeri Y, et al. Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method. Crit Care. 2021 Dec 1;25(1). pmid:33726819
- 23. Nolan JP, Monsieurs KG, Bossaert L., Böttiger BW, Greif R, Lott C, et al. European Resuscitation Council COVID-19 guidelines executive summary. Resuscitation. 2020 Aug 1;153:45–55. pmid:32525022
- 24. Oh J, Cha KC, Lee JH, Park S, Kim DH, Lee BK, et al. 2020 Korean guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. part 4. adult advanced life support. Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2021;8(S):S26–40. pmid:34034448
- 25. Quintard H, l’Her E, Pottecher J, Adnet F, Constantin JM, de Jong A, et al. Experts’ guidelines of intubation and extubation of the ICU patient of French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (SFAR) and French-speaking Intensive Care Society (SRLF): In collaboration with the pediatric Association of French-speaking Anaesthetists and Intensivists (ADARPEF), French-speaking Group of Intensive Care and Paediatric emergencies (GFRUP) and Intensive Care physiotherapy society (SKR). Ann Intensive Care. 2019 Dec 1;9(1).
- 26. Sharma D, Rasmussen M, Han R, Whalin MK, Davis M, Kofke WA, et al. Anesthetic Management of Endovascular Treatment of Acute Ischemic Stroke during COVID-19 Pandemic: Consensus Statement from Society for Neuroscience in Anesthesiology & Critical Care (SNACC). J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2020 Jul 1;32(3):193–201.
- 27. Singh B, Garg R, Chakra Rao SSC, Ahmed S, DIvatia J, Ramakrishnan T, et al. Indian resuscitation council (IRC) suggested guidelines for comprehensive cardiopulmonary life support (CCLS) for suspected or confirmed coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patient. Indian J Anaesth. 2020 May 1;64(14):S91–6. pmid:32773845
- 28. de Jong A, Clavieras N, Conseil M, Coisel Y, Moury PH, Pouzeratte Y, et al. Implementation of a combo videolaryngoscope for intubation in critically ill patients: A before-after comparative study. Intensive Care Med. 2013 Dec;39(12):2144–52. pmid:24045887
- 29.
Driver BE, Prekker ME, Moore JC, Schick AL, Reardon RF, Miner JR. Direct Versus Video Laryngoscopy Using the C-MAC for Tracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department, a Randomized Controlled Trial. In: Academic Emergency Medicine. Blackwell Publishing Inc.; 2016. p. 433–9.
- 30. Gao Y xia, Song Y bo, Gu Z juan, Zhang J song, Chen X feng, Sun H, et al. Video versus direct laryngoscopy on successful first-pass endotracheal intubation in ICU patients. World J Emerg Med. 2018;9(2):99. pmid:29576821
- 31. Griesdale DEG, Chau A, Isac G, Ayas N, Foster D, Irwin C, et al. Video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: A pilot randomized trial. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia. 2012 Nov;59(11):1032–9. pmid:22932944
- 32. Groombridge CJ, Maini A, Olaussen A, Kim Y, Fitzgerald M, Smit DV. Unintended consequences: The impact of airway management modifications introduced in response to COVID-19 on intubations in a tertiary centre emergency department. EMA—Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2021 Aug 1;33(4):728–33.
- 33. Ilbagi M, Nasr-Esfahani M. The efficacy of using video laryngoscopy on tracheal intubation by novice physicians. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2021 Jan 1;33(1):37–44. pmid:33654689
- 34. Janz DR, Semler MW, Lentz RJ, Matthews DT, Assad TR, Norman BC, et al. Randomized Trial of Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults. Crit Care Med. 2016 Nov 1;44(11):1980–7. pmid:27355526
- 35. Kim JW, Park SO, Lee KR, Hong DY, Baek KJ, Lee YH, et al. Video laryngoscopy vs. direct laryngoscopy: Which should be chosen for endotracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation? A prospective randomized controlled study of experienced intubators. Resuscitation. 2016 Aug 1;105:196–202. pmid:27095126
- 36. Lakticova V, Koenig SJ, Narasimhan M, Mayo PH. Video laryngoscopy is associated with increased first pass success and decreased rate of esophageal intubations during urgent endotracheal intubation in a medical intensive care unit when compared to direct laryngoscopy. J Intensive Care Med. 2015 Jan 16;30(1):44–8. pmid:23771876
- 37. Lascarrou JB, Boisrame-Helms J, Bailly A, le Thuaut A, Kamel T, Mercier E, et al. Video laryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy on successful first-pass orotracheal intubation among ICU patients: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA—Journal of the American Medical Association. 2017 Feb 7;317(5):483–93. pmid:28118659
- 38. Silverberg MJ, Li N, Acquah SO, Kory PD. Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy during urgent endotracheal intubation: A randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2015 Mar 4;43(3):636–41. pmid:25479112
- 39. Yeatts DJ, Dutton RP, Hu PF, Chang YWW, Brown CH, Chen H, et al. Effect of video laryngoscopy on trauma patient survival: A randomized controlled trial. In: Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2013. p. 212–9. pmid:23823612
- 40. Amalric M, Larcher R, Brunot V, Garnier F, de Jong A, Moulaire Rigollet V, et al. Impact of videolaryngoscopy expertise on first-attempt intubation success in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2020;E889–96. pmid:32769622
- 41.
April MD, Long B. Does the Use of Video Laryngoscopy Improve Intubation Outcomes? Vol. 71, Annals of Emergency Medicine. Mosby Inc.; 2018. p. e9–11.
- 42. Aziz M. Use of Video-assisted Intubation Devices in the Management of Patients with Trauma. Vol. 31, Anesthesiology Clinics. 2013. p. 157–66. pmid:23351541
- 43. Brewster DJ, Nickson CP, McGloughlin S, Pilcher D, Sarode V v., Gatward JJ. Preparation for airway management in Australia and New Zealand ICUs during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2021 May 1;16(5 May). pmid:33961677
- 44. Brown CA, Bair AE, Pallin DJ, Laurin EG, Walls RM. Improved glottic exposure with the video MacIntosh laryngoscope in adult emergency department tracheal intubations. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;56(2):83–8. pmid:20202720
- 45. Brown CA, Bair AE, Pallin DJ, Walls RM. Techniques, success, and adverse events of emergency department adult intubations. Ann Emerg Med. 2015 Apr 1;65(4):363-370.e1.
- 46. Brown CA, Kaji AH, Fantegrossi A, Carlson JN, April MD, Kilgo RW, et al. Video Laryngoscopy Compared to Augmented Direct Laryngoscopy in Adult Emergency Department Tracheal Intubations: A National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR) Study. Academic Emergency Medicine. 2020 Feb 1;27(2):100–8. pmid:31957174
- 47. Carlson JN, Crofts J, Walls RM, Brown CA. Direct versus video laryngoscopy for intubating adult patients with gastrointestinal bleeding. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2015;16(7):1052–6. pmid:26759653
- 48. Chan GWH, Chai CY, Teo JSY, Tjio CKE, Chua MT, Brown CA. Emergency airway management in a Singapore centre: A registry study. Ann Acad Med Singap. 2021 Jan 1;50(1):42–51. pmid:33623957
- 49. Cho YS, Cho J, Chung HS. Assessment of emergency airway management techniques in Korea using an online registration system: A multicenter study. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2015 Jan 1;48(1):1–9. pmid:25271178
- 50. Choi HJ, Kim YM, Oh YM, Kang HG, Yim HW, Jeong SH. GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: A propensity score-matched analysis. BMJ Open. 2015;5(5). pmid:25968006
- 51. Dodd KW, Prekker ME, Robinson AE, Buckley R, Reardon RF, Driver BE. Video screen viewing and first intubation attempt success with standard geometry video laryngoscope use. American Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2019 Jul 1;37(7):1336–9. pmid:30528054
- 52.
Driver BE, Prekker ME, Reardon RF, Fantegrossi A, Walls RM, Brown CA. Comparing Emergency Department First-Attempt Intubation Success With Standard-Geometry and Hyperangulated Video Laryngoscopes. In: Annals of Emergency Medicine. Mosby Inc.; 2020. p. 332–8.
- 53. Green RS, Fergusson DA, Turgeon AF, McIntyre LA, Kovacs GJ, Griesdale DE, et al. Device and Medication Preferences of Canadian Physicians for Emergent Endotracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Patients. Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2017 May 1;19(3):186–97. pmid:27573571
- 54. Hart JC, Goldstein LN. Analysis of the airway registry from an academic emergency department in South Africa. South African Medical Journal. 2020;110(6):484–90. pmid:32880559
- 55. Hawkins A, Stapleton S, Rodriguez G, Mauricio Gonzalez R, Baker WE. Emergency tracheal intubation in patients with covid-19: A single-center, retrospective cohort study. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2021 May 1;22(3):678–86. pmid:34125046
- 56. Hypes CD, Stolz U, Sakles JC, Joshi RR, Natt B, Malo J, et al. Video laryngoscopy improves odds of first-attempt success at intubation in the intensive care unit a propensity-matched analysis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2016 Mar 1;13(3):382–9.
- 57. Hypes C, Sakles J, Joshi R, Greenberg J, Natt B, Malo J, et al. Failure to achieve first attempt success at intubation using video laryngoscopy is associated with increased complications. Intern Emerg Med. 2017 Dec 1;12(8):1235–43. pmid:27738960
- 58. Joshi R, Hypes CD, Greenberg J, Snyder L, Malo J, Bloom JW, et al. Difficult airway characteristics associated with first-attempt failure at intubation using video laryngoscopy in the intensive care unit. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2017 Mar 1;14(3):368–75. pmid:27983871
- 59. Kory P, Guevarra K, Mathew JP, Hegde A, Mayo PH. The impact of video laryngoscopy use during urgent endotracheal intubation in the critically ill. Anesth Analg. 2013 Jul;117(1):144–9. pmid:23687228
- 60. Mallick T, Verma A, Jaiswal S, Haldar M, Sheikh WR, Vishen A, et al. Comparison of the time to successful endotracheal intubation using the Macintosh laryngoscope or KingVision video laryngoscope in the emergency department: A prospective observational study. Turk J Emerg Med. 2020 Jan 1;20(1):22–7. pmid:32355898
- 61. Martin M, Decamps P, Seguin A, Garret C, Crosby L, Zambon O, et al. Nationwide survey on training and device utilization during tracheal intubation in French intensive care units. Ann Intensive Care. 2020 Dec 1;10(1). pmid:31900637
- 62. Michailidou M, O’Keeffe T, Mosier JM, Friese RS, Joseph B, Rhee P, et al. A comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for the emergency intubation of trauma patients. World J Surg. 2015;39(3):782–8. pmid:25348885
- 63. Mosier JM, Whitmore SP, Bloom JW, Snyder LS, Graham LA, Carr GE, et al. Video laryngoscopy improves intubation success and reduces esophageal intubations compared to direct laryngoscopy in the medical intensive care unit. Crit Care. 2013 Oct 14;17(5). pmid:24125064
- 64. Mosier J, Chiu S, Patanwala AE, Sakles JC. A comparison of the glidescope video laryngoscope to the c-mac video laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med. 2013;61(4).
- 65. Noppens RR, Geimer S, Eisel N, David M, Piepho T. Endotracheal intubation using the C-MAC ®video laryngoscope or the Macintosh laryngoscope: A prospective, comparative study in the ICU. Crit Care. 2012 Jun 13;16(3). pmid:22695007
- 66. Okamoto H, Goto T, Wong ZSY, Hagiwara Y, Watase H, Hasegawa K. Comparison of video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for intubation in emergency department patients with cardiac arrest: A multicentre study. Resuscitation. 2019 Mar 1;136:70–7. pmid:30385385
- 67. Sakles JC, Mosier JM, Chiu S, Keim SM. Tracheal intubation in the emergency department: A comparison of GlideScope® video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy in 822 intubations. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2012 Apr;42(4):400–5. pmid:21689899
- 68. Sakles JC, Patanwala AE, Mosier JM, Dicken JM. Comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of patients with difficult airway characteristics in the emergency department. Intern Emerg Med. 2014 Feb;9(1):93–8. pmid:24002788
- 69. Sakles JC, Mosier JM, Patanwala AE, Dicken JM, Kalin L, Javedani PP. The C-MAC® video laryngoscope is superior to the direct laryngoscope for the rescue of failed first-attempt intubations in the emergency department. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2015 Mar 1;48(3):280–6. pmid:25498851
- 70. Sakles JC, Douglas MJK, Hypes CD, Patanwala AE, Mosier JM. Management of Patients with Predicted Difficult Airways in an Academic Emergency Department. Journal of Emergency Medicine. 2017 Aug 1;53(2):163–71. pmid:28606617
- 71. Seisa MO, Gondhi V, Demirci O, Diedrich DA, Kashyap R, Smischney NJ. Survey on the Current State of Endotracheal Intubation Among the Critically Ill: HEMAIR Investigators. Vol. 33, Journal of Intensive Care Medicine. SAGE Publications Inc.; 2018. p. 354–60. pmid:27298389
- 72. Silverberg MJ, Kory P. Survey of video laryngoscopy use by U.S. critical care fellowship training programs. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014 Oct 1;11(8):1125–9. pmid:25167930
- 73. Smischney NJ, Seisa MO, Heise KJ, Busack KD, Loftsgard TO, Schroeder DR, et al. Practice of Intubation of the Critically Ill at Mayo Clinic. J Intensive Care Med. 2019 Mar 1;34(3):204–11.
- 74. Suzuki K, Kusunoki S, Tanigawa K, Shime N. Comparison of three video laryngoscopes and direct laryngoscopy for emergency endotracheal intubation: A retrospective cohort study. BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 1;9(3). pmid:30928937
- 75. Swaminathan AK, Berkowitz R, Baker A, Spyres M. Do emergency medicine residents receive appropriate video laryngoscopy training? a survey to compare the utilization of video laryngoscopy devices in emergency medicine residency programs and community emergency departments. In: Journal of Emergency Medicine. Elsevier USA; 2015. p. 613–9. pmid:25648052
- 76. Hawkins E, Moy HP, Brice JH. Critical Airway Skills and Procedures. Vol. 31, Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America. 2013. p. 1–28. pmid:23200327
- 77. Howson A, Goodliff A, Horner D. BET 2: Video laryngoscopy for patients requiring endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Vol. 37, Emergency Medicine Journal. BMJ Publishing Group; 2020. p. 381–3. pmid:32487710
- 78. Cabrini L, Landoni G, Baiardo Radaelli M, Saleh O, Votta CD, Fominskiy E, et al. Tracheal intubation in critically ill patients: A comprehensive systematic review of randomized trials. Crit Care. 2018 Jan 20;22(1). pmid:29351759