TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy and adverse events profile of videolaryngoscopy in critically ill patients
T2 - subanalysis of the INTUBE study
AU - INTUBE Study Investigators
AU - Russotto, Vincenzo
AU - Lascarrou, Jean Baptiste
AU - Tassistro, Elena
AU - Parotto, Matteo
AU - Antolini, Laura
AU - Bauer, Philippe
AU - Szułdrzyński, Konstanty
AU - Camporota, Luigi
AU - Putensen, Christian
AU - Pelosi, Paolo
AU - Sorbello, Massimiliano
AU - Higgs, Andy
AU - Greif, Robert
AU - Grasselli, Giacomo
AU - Valsecchi, Maria G.
AU - Fumagalli, Roberto
AU - Foti, Giuseppe
AU - Caironi, Pietro
AU - Bellani, Giacomo
AU - Laffey, John G.
AU - Myatra, Sheila N.
AU - Anstey, Matthew
AU - Colica, Sandra
AU - Brewster, David
AU - Simpson, Shannon
AU - Regli, Adrian
AU - O'Grady, Ross
AU - Litton, Edward
AU - Ferrier, Janet
AU - Bartholdy, Roland
AU - Tabah, Alexis
AU - Bowen, David
AU - Rowley, Rebecca
AU - Gatward, Jonathan
AU - Alonso, Julio
AU - Varkey, Sneha
AU - Palaniswamy, Vijayanand
AU - Chimunda, Timothy
AU - Reza, Syed T.
AU - Hossain, Mozaffer
AU - Islam, Motiul
AU - Hamid, Tarikul
AU - Ajami, Samareh
AU - Steel, Andrew
AU - Del Sorbo, Lorenzo
AU - Goffi, Alberto
AU - Randall, Ian
AU - Adhikari, Neill K.J.
AU - Aissaoui, Nadia
AU - Lomivorotov, Vladimir
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 British Journal of Anaesthesia
PY - 2023/9
Y1 - 2023/9
N2 - Background: Tracheal intubation is a high-risk procedure in the critically ill, with increased intubation failure rates and a high risk of other adverse events. Videolaryngoscopy might improve intubation outcomes in this population, but evidence remains conflicting, and its impact on adverse event rates is debated. Methods: This is a subanalysis of a large international prospective cohort of critically ill patients (INTUBE Study) performed from 1 October 2018 to 31 July 2019 and involving 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents. Our primary aim was to determine the first-pass intubation success rates of videolaryngoscopy. Secondary aims were characterising (a) videolaryngoscopy use in the critically ill patient population and (b) the incidence of severe adverse effects compared with direct laryngoscopy. Results: Of 2916 patients, videolaryngoscopy was used in 500 patients (17.2%) and direct laryngoscopy in 2416 (82.8%). First-pass intubation success was higher with videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy (84% vs 79%, P=0.02). Patients undergoing videolaryngoscopy had a higher frequency of difficult airway predictors (60% vs 40%, P<0.001). In adjusted analyses, videolaryngoscopy increased the probability of first-pass intubation success, with an OR of 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.87). Videolaryngoscopy was not significantly associated with risk of major adverse events (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.95–1.62) or cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60–1.02). Conclusions: In critically ill patients, videolaryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass intubation success rates, despite being used in a population at higher risk of difficult airway management. Videolaryngoscopy was not associated with overall risk of major adverse events. Clinical trial registration: NCT03616054.
AB - Background: Tracheal intubation is a high-risk procedure in the critically ill, with increased intubation failure rates and a high risk of other adverse events. Videolaryngoscopy might improve intubation outcomes in this population, but evidence remains conflicting, and its impact on adverse event rates is debated. Methods: This is a subanalysis of a large international prospective cohort of critically ill patients (INTUBE Study) performed from 1 October 2018 to 31 July 2019 and involving 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents. Our primary aim was to determine the first-pass intubation success rates of videolaryngoscopy. Secondary aims were characterising (a) videolaryngoscopy use in the critically ill patient population and (b) the incidence of severe adverse effects compared with direct laryngoscopy. Results: Of 2916 patients, videolaryngoscopy was used in 500 patients (17.2%) and direct laryngoscopy in 2416 (82.8%). First-pass intubation success was higher with videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy (84% vs 79%, P=0.02). Patients undergoing videolaryngoscopy had a higher frequency of difficult airway predictors (60% vs 40%, P<0.001). In adjusted analyses, videolaryngoscopy increased the probability of first-pass intubation success, with an OR of 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05–1.87). Videolaryngoscopy was not significantly associated with risk of major adverse events (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.95–1.62) or cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60–1.02). Conclusions: In critically ill patients, videolaryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass intubation success rates, despite being used in a population at higher risk of difficult airway management. Videolaryngoscopy was not associated with overall risk of major adverse events. Clinical trial registration: NCT03616054.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85159559533&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85159559533&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.bja.2023.04.022
DO - 10.1016/j.bja.2023.04.022
M3 - Article
C2 - 37208282
AN - SCOPUS:85159559533
SN - 0007-0912
VL - 131
SP - 607
EP - 616
JO - British Journal of Anaesthesia
JF - British Journal of Anaesthesia
IS - 3
ER -