• Medicine · Sep 2020

    Observational Study

    Changing the view: Video versus direct laryngoscopy for intubation in the pediatric emergency department.

    • Thomaz Bittencourt Couto, Amélia Gorete Reis, Farhat Sylvia Costa Lima SCL, Vitor Emanoel de Lemos Carvalho, and Claudio Schvartsman.
    • Medicine (Baltimore). 2020 Sep 18; 99 (38): e22289.

    AbstractThe aim of this study was to compare the success of first-attempt tracheal intubation in pediatric patients >1-year old performed using video versus direct laryngoscopy and compare the frequency of tracheal intubation-associated events and desaturation among these patients.Prospective observational cohort study conducted in an Academic pediatric tertiary emergency department. We compared 50 children intubated with Mcgrath Mac video laryngoscope (VL group) and an historical series of 141 children intubated with direct laryngoscopy (DL group). All patients were aged 1 to 18 years.The first attempt success rates were 68% (34/50) and 37.6% (53/141) in the VL and DL groups (P < .01), respectively. There was a lower proportion of tracheal intubation-associated events in the VL group (VL, 31.3% [15/50] vs DL, 67.8% [97/141]; P < .01) and no significant differences in desaturation (VL, 35% [14/50] vs DL 51.8% [72/141]; P = .06). The median number of attempts was 1 (range, 1-5) for the VL group and 2 (range, 1-8) for the DL group (P < .01). Multivariate logistic regression showed that video laryngoscope use was associated with higher chances of first-attempt intubation with an odds ratio of 4.5 (95% confidence interval, 1.9-10.4, P < 0.01).Compared with direct laryngoscopy, VL was associated with higher success rates of first-attempt tracheal intubations and lower rates of tracheal intubation-associated events.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…