Videolaryngoscopy as the First-Line Approach

The Airway Section of the Spanish Society of Anaesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), the Latin American Federation of Emergency Medicine (FLAME) and an international group of airway experts (IAG) aimed to establish multidisciplinary recommendations advocating for the universal use of videolaryngoscopy (VL) in both emergency and planned care settings. A committee of experts from the two national scientific societies and an international group of airway experts was convened. Relevant research questions aligning with the document's objective were identified. A rapid systematic review of the evidence was performed, and the quality of evidence was assessed. Recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) The entire process was conducted independently of industry funding. Six domains were defined pertaining to VL: Clinical Benefits; Infrastructure and Accessibility; Clinical Guidelines and Protocols; Teaching and Clinical Training; Dissemination and Promotion of Clinical Benefits; Innovation, Sustainability, and Research. For each domain, specific questions were developed using the PICO model (Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes). A literature search was conducted following PRISMA-R guidelines and analysed using the GRADE methodology. The synthesis process resulted in 12 recommendations. Due to the low quality of available evidence, most recommendations were formulated based on expert opinion. The experts achieved strong consensus, formulating 12 recommendations to support strategies aimed at universalising the use of videolaryngoscopy.

Tracheal intubation is a common procedure performed to secure the airway in adults undergoing surgery or those who are critically ill. Intubation is sometimes associated with difficulties and complications that may result in patient harm. While it is traditionally achieved by performing direct laryngoscopy, the past three decades have seen the advent of rigid indirect videolaryngoscopes (VLs). A mounting body of evidence comparing the two approaches to tracheal intubation has been acquired over this period of time. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2016. To assess whether use of different designs of VLs in adults requiring tracheal intubation reduces the failure rate compared with direct laryngoscopy, and assess the benefits and risks of these devices in selected population groups, users and settings. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and Web of Science on 27 February 2021. We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings and conducted forward and backward citation searches. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs with adults undergoing laryngoscopy performed with either a VL or a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (DL) in any clinical setting. We included parallel and cross-over study designs. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We collected data for the following outcomes: failed intubation, hypoxaemia, successful first attempt at tracheal intubation, oesophageal intubation, dental trauma, Cormack-Lehane grade, and time for tracheal intubation. We included 222 studies (219 RCTs, three quasi-RCTs) with 26,149 participants undergoing tracheal intubation. Most studies recruited adults undergoing elective surgery requiring tracheal intubation. Twenty-one studies recruited participants with a known or predicted difficult airway, and an additional 25 studies simulated a difficult airway. Twenty-one studies were conducted outside the operating theatre environment; of these, six were in the prehospital setting, seven in the emergency department and eight in the intensive care unit.  We report here the findings of the three main comparisons according to videolaryngoscopy device type. We downgraded the certainty of the outcomes for imprecision, study limitations (e.g. high or unclear risks of bias), inconsistency when we noted substantial levels of statistical heterogeneity and publication bias. Macintosh-style videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (61 studies, 9883 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that a Macintosh-style VL probably reduces rates of failed intubation (risk ratio (RR) 0.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.65; 41 studies, 4615 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.99; 16 studies, 2127 participants). These devices may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.05, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.09; 42 studies, 7311 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view when assessed as Cormack-Lehane grade 3 and 4 (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.48; 38 studies, 4368 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.21; 14 studies, 2404 participants) but this finding was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.89; 18 studies, 2297 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 96%). Hyperangulated videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (96 studies, 11,438 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.76; 63 studies, 7146 participants) and oesophageal intubation (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.81; 14 studies, 1968 participants). In subgroup analysis, we noted that hyperangulated VLs were more likely to reduce failed intubation when used on known or predicted difficult airways (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.48; P = 0.03 for subgroup differences; 15 studies, 1520 participants). We also found that these devices may increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.05; 66 studies, 8086 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the glottic view is probably also improved (RR 0.15, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.24; 54 studies, 6058 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). However, we found low-certainty evidence of little or no clear difference in rates of hypoxaemia (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.11; 15 studies, 1691 participants), and the findings for dental trauma were unclear because the certainty of this evidence was very low (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.59; 30 studies, 3497 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 99%). Channelled videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy (73 studies, 7165 participants) We found moderate-certainty evidence that channelled VLs probably reduce rates of failed intubation (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.61; 53 studies, 5367 participants) and hypoxaemia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.50; 15 studies, 1966 participants). They may also increase rates of success on the first intubation attempt (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.15; 47 studies, 5210 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and probably improve glottic view (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.21; 40 studies, 3955 participants; data for Cormack-Lehane grade 3/4 views; moderate-certainty evidence). We found little or no clear difference in rates of oesophageal intubation (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.75; 16 studies, 1756 participants) but this was supported by low-certainty evidence. We were unsure of the findings for dental trauma because the certainty of the evidence was very low (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.12; 29 studies, 2375 participants). We were not able to pool data for time required for tracheal intubation owing to considerable heterogeneity (I2 = 98%). VLs of all designs likely reduce rates of failed intubation and result in higher rates of successful intubation on the first attempt with improved glottic views. Macintosh-style and channelled VLs likely reduce rates of hypoxaemic events, while hyperangulated VLs probably reduce rates of oesophageal intubation. We conclude that videolaryngoscopy likely provides a safer risk profile compared to direct laryngoscopy for all adults undergoing tracheal intubation.

Endotracheal tubes are typically inserted in the operating room using direct laryngoscopy. Video laryngoscopy has been reported to improve airway visualization; however, whether improved visualization reduces intubation attempts in surgical patients is unclear. To determine whether the number of intubation attempts per surgical procedure is lower when initial laryngoscopy is performed using video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy. Cluster randomized multiple crossover clinical trial conducted at a single US academic hospital. Patients were adults aged 18 years or older having elective or emergent cardiac, thoracic, or vascular surgical procedures who required single-lumen endotracheal intubation for general anesthesia. Patients were enrolled from March 30, 2021, to December 31, 2022. Data analysis was based on intention to treat. Two sets of 11 operating rooms were randomized on a 1-week basis to perform hyperangulated video laryngoscopy or direct laryngoscopy for the initial intubation attempt. The primary outcome was the number of operating room intubation attempts per surgical procedure. Secondary outcomes were intubation failure, defined as the responsible clinician switching to an alternative laryngoscopy device for any reason at any time, or by more than 3 intubation attempts, and a composite of airway and dental injuries. Among 8429 surgical procedures in 7736 patients, the median patient age was 66 (IQR, 56-73) years, 35% (2950) were women, and 85% (7135) had elective surgical procedures. More than 1 intubation attempt was required in 77 of 4413 surgical procedures (1.7%) randomized to receive video laryngoscopy vs 306 of 4016 surgical procedures (7.6%) randomized to receive direct laryngoscopy, with an estimated proportional odds ratio for the number of intubation attempts of 0.20 (95% CI, 0.14-0.28; P&#x2009;<&#x2009;.001). Intubation failure occurred in 12 of 4413 surgical procedures (0.27%) using video laryngoscopy vs 161 of 4016 surgical procedures (4.0%) using direct laryngoscopy (relative risk, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.03-0.14; P&#x2009;<&#x2009;.001) with an unadjusted absolute risk difference of -3.7% (95% CI, -4.4% to -3.2%). Airway and dental injuries did not differ significantly between video laryngoscopy (41 injuries [0.93%]) vs direct laryngoscopy (42 injuries [1.1%]). In this study among adults having surgical procedures who required single-lumen endotracheal intubation for general anesthesia, hyperangulated video laryngoscopy decreased the number of attempts needed to achieve endotracheal intubation compared with direct laryngoscopy at a single academic medical center in the US. Results suggest that video laryngoscopy may be a preferable approach for intubating patients undergoing surgical procedures. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04701762.

Default videolaryngoscopy - use of a videolaryngoscope in preference to a direct laryngoscope - remains a hotly debated topic. High-risk tracheal intubations performed during the COVID-19 pandemic added to the extensive existing evidence of advantages of videolaryngoscopy for patients and staff. Despite this, and calls for implementation of default videolaryngoscopy, it has not been adopted widely. We summarise current evidence for the benefits of videolaryngoscopy and discuss (and where appropriate dispute) the common reasons given for not using videolaryngoscopy. The experiences of five UK NHS hospitals which have made a move to default videolaryngoscopy are described, with practical advice to assist other hospitals planning similar projects. Several recent large randomised controlled trials and meta-analyses, incorporating data from over 200 trials, support the use of videolaryngoscopes. Guidelines and reports published since 2015 have recommended immediate access to videolaryngoscopes plus training and skill acquisition in the required techniques. Recent guidelines have recommended the routine use of videolaryngoscopes whenever possible. Reported advantages include: technical benefits (improved safety, efficacy and ease of tracheal intubation plus fewer complications); non-technical benefits (including improved teamwork and communication); improved direct laryngoscopy training; and environmental benefits. Reasons cited for not using a videolaryngoscope include concerns that they: are unnecessary; lead to decay in or failure to learn direct laryngoscopy skills; videolaryngoscopy failure; ineffectiveness in a soiled airway; cost; and challenges relating to decontamination of reusable blades. We discuss these and, where appropriate, provide counter arguments. This narrative review provides the relevant evidence and information for clinicians, managers, procurement teams and sterile services departments to use, should a business case be proposed to implement default videolaryngoscopy. We describe effective practical strategies for addressing implementation challenges. Doctors often use a tool called a laryngoscope to help put a breathing tube into a person's throat. There are two kinds: a regular one (called a direct laryngoscope) and a video one (called a videolaryngoscope). Some doctors think the video one is better and safer, especially for hard cases. But even with lots of proof, many hospitals still don't use the video kind all the time. This report looks at the research showing why the video laryngoscope is useful. It also talks about common reasons people give for not using it and explains why those reasons might not be right. It shares what five hospitals in the UK did to start using the video kind as their first choice and gives tips for others who want to do the same. Big studies that looked at over 200 trials say the video laryngoscope works well. Since 2015, expert groups have said hospitals should have these tools ready and train doctors to use them. New rules even say they should be used as the normal choice when possible. The video laryngoscope helps doctors see better and avoid problems. It also helps teams work together better and makes training easier. Some people worry the video tool is too expensive, too hard to clean or won't work in certain situations. The report talks about these worries and gives reasons why they may not be true. This report gives useful facts and ideas to help doctors, hospital leaders and equipment teams decide if they want to switch to using the video laryngoscope as the first choice. It also gives helpful steps to make the change smoother.

Tracheal intubation is a commonly performed procedure that can be associated with complications and result in patient harm. Videolaryngoscopy (VL) may decrease this risk as compared with Macintosh direct laryngoscopy (DL). This review evaluates the risk and benefit profile of VL compared with DL in adults. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Web of Science on February 27, 2021. We included RCTs comparing VL with DL in patients undergoing tracheal intubation in any setting. We separately compared outcomes according to VL design: Macintosh-style, hyperangulated, and channelled. A total of 222 RCTs (with 26 149 participants) were included. Most studies had unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, and all were at high risk of performance and detection bias. We found that videolaryngoscopes of any design likely reduce rates of failed intubation (Macintosh-style: risk ratio [RR]=0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.26-0.65; hyperangulated: RR=0.51; 95% CI, 0.34-0.76; channelled: RR=0.43, 95% CI, 0.30-0.61; moderate-certainty evidence) with increased rates of successful intubation on first attempt and better glottic views across patient groups and settings. Hyperangulated designs are likely favourable in terms of reducing the rate of oesophageal intubation, and result in improved rates of successful intubation in individuals presenting with difficult airway features (P=0.03). We also present other patient-oriented outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of trials of adults undergoing tracheal intubation, VL was associated with fewer failed attempts and complications such as hypoxaemia, whereas glottic views were improved. This article is based on a Cochrane Review published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) 2022, Issue 4, DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011136.pub3 (see www.cochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and the CDSR should be consulted for the most recent version of the review.

Before completion of this study, there was insufficient evidence demonstrating the superiority of videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy for elective tracheal intubation. We hypothesised that using videolaryngoscopy for routine tracheal intubation would result in higher first-pass tracheal intubation success compared with direct laryngoscopy. In this multicentre randomised trial, 2092 adult patients without predicted difficult airway requiring tracheal intubation for elective surgery were allocated randomly to either videolaryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade (McGrath&#x2122;) or direct laryngoscopy. First-pass tracheal intubation success was higher with the McGrath (987/1053, 94%), compared with direct laryngoscopy (848/1039, 82%); absolute risk reduction (95%CI) was 12.1% (10.9-13.6%). This resulted in a relative risk (95%CI) of unsuccessful tracheal intubation at first attempt of 0.34 (0.26-0.45; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001) for McGrath compared with direct laryngoscopy. Cormack and Lehane grade &#x2265;&#x2009;3 was observed more frequently with direct laryngoscopy (84/1039, 8%) compared with McGrath (8/1053, 0.7%; p&#x2009;<&#x2009;0.001) No significant difference in tracheal intubation-associated adverse events was observed between groups. This study demonstrates that using McGrath videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy improves first-pass tracheal intubation success in patients having elective surgery. Practitioners may consider using this device as first choice for tracheal intubation.