Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Matters Arising
  • Open access
  • Published:

A comparison of video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients

Critical Care volume 28, Article number: 27 (2024) Cite this article

The Original Article was published on 02 January 2024

To the Editor,

We read the article “Video versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials” by Araújo et al. [1] with great interest. Although the article is well-written, certain parts merit further discussion.

Following the authors' search strategy, our reevaluation revealed that the study omitted several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that met the criteria, including Mo et al. [2], Shukla et al. [3], Ilbagi et al. [4], Grensemann et al. [5], Kim et al. [6], Silverberg et al. [7]. These six additional RCTs increased the total patient count to 4532, with 2276 in the video laryngoscopy (VL) group and 2256 in the direct laryngoscopy (DL) group. We extracted data from the newly included RCTs and analyzed successful intubations on the first attempt using STATA 16.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). The meta-analysis result suggests that VL significantly enhances the first-attempt success rate compared to DL (RR, 1.12; 95% CI 1.05, 1.19; P < 0.05) (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Forest plot of the first-attempt success rate in endotracheal intubation using video laryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy. VL, video laryngoscopy; DL, direct laryngoscopy; CI, confidence interval

Full size image

In light of the new result regarding the first-attempt success rate, we conducted a Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) analysis. The two-sided Type I error was set at 5%, and a power of 80% was chosen to calculate the required information size (RIS) for the analysis. The incidence in the control arm was estimated through the meta-analysis. The results showed that the blue cumulative Z-curve, created using a random-effects model, crossed the traditional and TSA boundaries and reached the RIS. Consequently, this finding confirmed the improved first-attempt success rate with VL (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Trial sequential analysis (TSA) of the first-attempt success rate. The blue Z curve represents the treatment effect (pooled relative risk). Green dotted lines denote traditional boundaries, and red solid lines indicate TSA boundaries. RIS, required information size; VL, video laryngoscopy; DL, direct laryngoscopy

Full size image

By expanding the sample size and increasing the number of studies, our analysis provided more comprehensive evidence-based evidence.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. Araújo B, Rivera A, Martins S, et al. Video versus direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care. 2024;28(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-023-04727-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Mo C, Zhang L, Song Y, Liu W. Safety and effectiveness of endotracheal intubation in critically ill emergency patients with videolaryngoscopy. Medicine (Baltimore). 2023;102(44):e35692. https://doi.org/10.1097/md.0000000000035692.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Shukla A, Shanker R, Singh VK, Singh GP, Srivastava T. Non-channeled video laryngoscopy as an alternative to conventional laryngoscopy for intubating adult patients in the intensive care unit. Cureus. 2023;15(6): e40716. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40716.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Ilbagi M, Nasr-Esfahani M. The efficacy of using video laryngoscopy on tracheal intubation by novice physicians. Iran J Otorhinolaryngol. 2021;33(114):37–44. https://doi.org/10.22038/ijorl.2020.43797.2447.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Grensemann J, Eichler L, Wang N, Jarczak D, Simon M, Kluge S. Endotracheal tube-mounted camera-assisted intubation versus conventional intubation in intensive care: a prospective, randomised trial (VivaITN). Crit Care. 2018;22(1):235. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2152-4.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim JW, Park SO, Lee KR, 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;105:196–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.04.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 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;43(3):636–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0000000000000751.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110000, China

    Yang Zhao & Bin Zang

  2. Department of Emergency, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, 110000, China

    Qian Wang

Authors
  1. Yang Zhao
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qian Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bin Zang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

YZ and QW were responsible for literature research and data extraction. BZ was responsible for the figures' production. All authors participated in the discussion and wrote the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Qian Wang or Bin Zang.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhao, Y., Wang, Q. & Zang, B. A comparison of video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in critically ill patients. Crit Care 28, 27 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04811-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-024-04811-8

Critical Care

ISSN: 1364-8535