Video versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Whether video laryngoscopy as compared with direct laryngoscopy increases the likelihood of successful tracheal intubation on the first attempt among critically ill adults is uncertain. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 17 emergency departments and intensive care units (ICUs), we randomly assigned critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation to the video-laryngoscope group or the direct-laryngoscope group. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the occurrence of severe complications during intubation; severe complications were defined as severe hypoxemia, severe hypotension, new or increased vasopressor use, cardiac arrest, or death. RESULTS: The trial was stopped for efficacy at the time of the single preplanned interim analysis. Among 1417 patients who were included in the final analysis (91.5% of whom underwent intubation that was performed by an emergency medicine resident or a critical care fellow), successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 600 of the 705 patients (85.1%) in the video-laryngoscope group and in 504 of the 712 patients (70.8%) in the direct-laryngoscope group (absolute risk difference, 14.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 9.9 to 18.7; P<0.001). A total of 151 patients (21.4%) in the video-laryngoscope group and 149 patients (20.9%) in the direct-laryngoscope group had a severe complication during intubation (absolute risk difference, 0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.9 to 4.9). Safety outcomes, including esophageal intubation, injury to the teeth, and aspiration, were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in an emergency department or ICU, the use of a video laryngoscope resulted in a higher incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt than the use of a direct laryngoscope. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; DEVICE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05239195.).

Laryngoscopy and Tracheal Intubation: Does Use of a Video Laryngoscope Facilitate Both Steps of the Procedure?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of the use of a video laryngoscope versus a direct laryngoscope on each step of emergency intubation: laryngoscopy (step 1) and intubation of the trachea (step 2). METHODS: In a secondary observational analysis of data from 2 multicenter, randomized trials that enrolled critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation but did not control for laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope), we fit mixed-effects logistic regression models examining the 1) the association between laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope) and the Cormack-Lehane grade of view and 2) the interaction between grade of view, laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope), and the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,786 patients: 467 (26.2%) in the direct laryngoscope group and 1,319 (73.9%) in the video laryngoscope group. The use of a video laryngoscope was associated with an improved grade of view as compared with a direct laryngoscope (adjusted odds ratio for increasingly favorable grade of view 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47 to 3.99). Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 83.2% of patients in the video laryngoscope group and 72.2% of patients in the direct laryngoscope group (absolute difference 11.1%, 95% CI 6.5% to 15.6%). Video laryngoscope use modified the association between grade of view and successful intubation on the first attempt such that intubation on the first attempt was similar between video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope at a grade 1 view and higher for video laryngoscope than direct laryngoscope at grade 2 to 4 views (P<.001 for interaction term). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, the use of a video laryngoscope was associated both with a better view of the vocal cords and with a higher probability of successfully intubating the trachea when the view of the vocal cords was incomplete in this observational analysis. However, a multicenter, randomized trial directly comparing the effect of a video laryngoscope with a direct laryngoscope on the grade of view, success, and complications is needed.

Individualized Treatment Effects of Bougie versus Stylet for Tracheal Intubation in Critical Illness.

Rationale: A recent randomized trial found that using a bougie did not increase the incidence of successful intubation on first attempt in critically ill adults. The average effect of treatment in a trial population, however, may differ from effects for individuals. Objective: We hypothesized that application of a machine learning model to data from a clinical trial could estimate the effect of treatment (bougie vs. stylet) for individual patients based on their baseline characteristics ("individualized treatment effects"). Methods: This was a secondary analysis of the BOUGIE (Bougie or Stylet in Patients Undergoing Intubation Emergently) trial. A causal forest algorithm was used to model differences in outcome probabilities by randomized group assignment (bougie vs. stylet) for each patient in the first half of the trial (training cohort). This model was used to predict individualized treatment effects for each patient in the second half (validation cohort). Measurements and Main Results: Of 1,102 patients in the BOUGIE trial, 558 (50.6%) were the training cohort, and 544 (49.4%) were the validation cohort. In the validation cohort, individualized treatment effects predicted by the model significantly modified the effect of trial group assignment on the primary outcome (P value for interaction = 0.02; adjusted qini coefficient, 2.46). The most important model variables were difficult airway characteristics, body mass index, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. Conclusions: In this hypothesis-generating secondary analysis of a randomized trial with no average treatment effect and no treatment effect in any prespecified subgroups, a causal forest machine learning algorithm identified patients who appeared to benefit from the use of a bougie over a stylet and from the use of a stylet over a bougie using complex interactions between baseline patient and operator characteristics.

DirEct versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE (DEVICE): protocol and statistical analysis plan for a randomised clinical trial in critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation.

INTRODUCTION: Among critically ill patients undergoing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department (ED) or intensive care unit (ICU), failure to visualise the vocal cords and intubate the trachea on the first attempt is associated with an increased risk of complications. Two types of laryngoscopes are commonly available: direct laryngoscopes and video laryngoscopes. For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, it remains uncertain whether the use of a video laryngoscope increases the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt compared with the use of a direct laryngoscope. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The DirEct versus VIdeo LaryngosCopE (DEVICE) trial is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded, randomised trial being conducted in 7 EDs and 10 ICUs in the USA. The trial plans to enrol up to 2000 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation with a laryngoscope. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 to the use of a video laryngoscope or a direct laryngoscope for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome is successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome is the incidence of severe complications between induction and 2 min after intubation, defined as the occurrence of one or more of the following: severe hypoxaemia (lowest oxygen saturation <80%); severe hypotension (systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg or new or increased vasopressor administration); cardiac arrest or death. Enrolment began on 19 March 2022 and is expected to be completed in 2023. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol was approved with waiver of informed consent by the single institutional review board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Human Research Protection Office of the Department of Defense. The results will be presented at scientific conferences and submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT05239195).

Adding age-adjusted shock index to the American College of Surgeons' trauma team activation criteria to predict severe injury in children.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) requires trauma centers to use six minimum criteria (ACS-6) for full trauma team activation. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of adding age-adjusted shock index (SI) to the ACS-6 for the prediction of severe injury among pediatric trauma patients with the hypothesis that SI would significantly improve sensitivity with an acceptable decrease in specificity. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of prospectively collected EMS and trauma registry data from two urban pediatric trauma centers. Age-adjusted SI thresholds were calculated as heart rate divided by systolic blood pressure using 2020 Pediatric Advanced Life Support SI vital sign ranges and previously published Shock Index, Pediatric Adjusted (SIPA) thresholds. The primary outcome was a composite of emergency operative (within 1 hour of arrival) or emergency procedural intervention (EOPI) or Injury Severity Score (ISS) greater than 15. Sensitivities, specificities, and 95% CIs were calculated for the ACS-6 alone and in combination with age-adjusted SI. RESULTS: There were 8,078 patients included; 20% had an elevated age-adjusted SI and 17% met at least one ACS minimum criterion; 1% underwent EOPI; and 17% had ISS >15. Sensitivity and specificity of the ACS-6 for EOPI or ISS > 5 were 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 41-50%) and 89% (95% CI, 81-96%). Inclusion of Pediatric Advanced Life Support-SI and SIPA resulted in sensitivities of 51% (95% CI, 47-56%) and 69% (95% CI, 65-72%), and specificities of 80% (95% CI, 71-89%) and 60% (95% CI, 53-68%), respectively. Similar trends were seen for each secondary outcome. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of pediatric trauma registry patients, the addition of SIPA to the ACS-6 for trauma team activation resulted in significantly increased sensitivity for EOPI or ISS greater than 15 but poor specificity. Future investigation should explore using age-adjusted shock index in a two-tiered trauma activation system, or in combination with novel triage criteria, in a population-based cohort. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Tests or Criteria; Level II.

Video Laryngoscopy Is Associated With First-Pass Success in Emergency Department Intubations for Trauma Patients: A Propensity Score Matched Analysis of the National Emergency Airway Registry.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to (1) characterize emergency department (ED) intubations in trauma patients and estimate (2) first-pass success and (3) the association between patient and intubation characteristics and first-pass success. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective observational cohort of ED intubations from the National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR). Descriptive statistics were calculated for all patients who were intubated for trauma at 23 NEAR EDs between 2016 and 2018. We evaluated first-pass success in patients intubated by (1) emergency or pediatric emergency physicians, (2) using rapid sequence intubation or no medications, and (3) either direct laryngoscopy or video laryngoscopy. We used propensity score matching with a generalized linear mixed-effects model to estimate the associations between patient and intubation characteristics and first-pass success. RESULTS: Of the 19,071 intubations in NEAR, 4,449 (23%) were for trauma, and nearly all (88%) had at least one difficult airway characteristic. Prevalence of first-pass success was 86.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 83.3% to 90.3%). Most patients were intubated with video laryngoscopy, and patients were more likely to be intubated on first-pass with video laryngoscopy as compared to direct laryngoscopy (90% versus 79%). After propensity score matching, video laryngoscopy remained associated with first-pass success (adjusted risk difference 11%, 95% CI: 8% to 14%; and OR 2.2, 95% CI: 1.6 to 2.9). Additionally, an initial impression of difficult airway, blood/vomit in the airway, and use of external laryngeal manipulation were all associated with decreased odds of first-pass success. CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians are successful at intubating patients in the setting of trauma, and video laryngoscopy is associated with twice the odds of first-pass success when compared to direct laryngoscopy.