Cargando…

GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the use of a GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) improves first-attempt intubation success compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: A propensity score-matched analysis of data from a prospective multicentre ED airway regi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Choi, Hyuk Joong, Kim, Young-Min, Oh, Young Min, Kang, Hyung Goo, Yim, Hyun Woo, Jeong, Seung Hee
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25968006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007884
_version_ 1782371284565360640
author Choi, Hyuk Joong
Kim, Young-Min
Oh, Young Min
Kang, Hyung Goo
Yim, Hyun Woo
Jeong, Seung Hee
author_facet Choi, Hyuk Joong
Kim, Young-Min
Oh, Young Min
Kang, Hyung Goo
Yim, Hyun Woo
Jeong, Seung Hee
author_sort Choi, Hyuk Joong
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the use of a GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) improves first-attempt intubation success compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: A propensity score-matched analysis of data from a prospective multicentre ED airway registry—the Korean Emergency Airway Management Registry (KEAMR). SETTING: 4 academic EDs located in a metropolitan city and a province in South Korea. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4041 adult patients without cardiac arrest who underwent emergency intubation from January 2007 to December 2010. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary and secondary outcomes were successful first intubation attempt and intubation failure, respectively. To reduce the selection bias and potential confounding effects, we rigorously adjusted for the baseline differences between two groups using a propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of the 4041 eligible patients, a GVL was initially used in 540 patients (13.4%). Using 1:2 propensity score matching, 363 and 726 patients were assigned to the GVL and MAC groups, respectively. The adjusted relative risks (95% CIs) for the first-attempt success rates with a GVL compared with a MAC were 0.76 (0.56 to 1.04; p=0.084) and the respective intubation failure rates 1.03(0.99 to 1.07; p=0.157). Regarding the subgroups, the first-attempt success of the senior residents and attending physicians was lower with the GVL (0.47 (0.23 to 0.98), p=0.043). In the patients with slight intubation difficulty, the first-attempt success was lower (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88), p=0.008) and the intubation failure was higher with the GVL (1.07 (1.02 to 1.13), p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched analysis of data from a prospective multicentre ED airway registry, the overall first-attempt intubation success and failure rates did not differ significantly between GVL and MAC in the ED setting. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4431126
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44311262015-05-20 GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis Choi, Hyuk Joong Kim, Young-Min Oh, Young Min Kang, Hyung Goo Yim, Hyun Woo Jeong, Seung Hee BMJ Open Emergency Medicine OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether the use of a GlideScope video laryngoscope (GVL) improves first-attempt intubation success compared with the Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC) in the emergency department (ED). DESIGN: A propensity score-matched analysis of data from a prospective multicentre ED airway registry—the Korean Emergency Airway Management Registry (KEAMR). SETTING: 4 academic EDs located in a metropolitan city and a province in South Korea. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 4041 adult patients without cardiac arrest who underwent emergency intubation from January 2007 to December 2010. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary and secondary outcomes were successful first intubation attempt and intubation failure, respectively. To reduce the selection bias and potential confounding effects, we rigorously adjusted for the baseline differences between two groups using a propensity score matching. RESULTS: Of the 4041 eligible patients, a GVL was initially used in 540 patients (13.4%). Using 1:2 propensity score matching, 363 and 726 patients were assigned to the GVL and MAC groups, respectively. The adjusted relative risks (95% CIs) for the first-attempt success rates with a GVL compared with a MAC were 0.76 (0.56 to 1.04; p=0.084) and the respective intubation failure rates 1.03(0.99 to 1.07; p=0.157). Regarding the subgroups, the first-attempt success of the senior residents and attending physicians was lower with the GVL (0.47 (0.23 to 0.98), p=0.043). In the patients with slight intubation difficulty, the first-attempt success was lower (0.60 (0.41 to 0.88), p=0.008) and the intubation failure was higher with the GVL (1.07 (1.02 to 1.13), p=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched analysis of data from a prospective multicentre ED airway registry, the overall first-attempt intubation success and failure rates did not differ significantly between GVL and MAC in the ED setting. Further randomised controlled trials are needed to confirm our findings. BMJ Publishing Group 2015-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC4431126/ /pubmed/25968006 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007884 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Emergency Medicine
Choi, Hyuk Joong
Kim, Young-Min
Oh, Young Min
Kang, Hyung Goo
Yim, Hyun Woo
Jeong, Seung Hee
GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis
title GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis
title_full GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis
title_fullStr GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis
title_full_unstemmed GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis
title_short GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis
title_sort glidescope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in the emergency department: a propensity score-matched analysis
topic Emergency Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4431126/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25968006
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007884
work_keys_str_mv AT choihyukjoong glidescopevideolaryngoscopyversusdirectlaryngoscopyintheemergencydepartmentapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT kimyoungmin glidescopevideolaryngoscopyversusdirectlaryngoscopyintheemergencydepartmentapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT ohyoungmin glidescopevideolaryngoscopyversusdirectlaryngoscopyintheemergencydepartmentapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT kanghyunggoo glidescopevideolaryngoscopyversusdirectlaryngoscopyintheemergencydepartmentapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT yimhyunwoo glidescopevideolaryngoscopyversusdirectlaryngoscopyintheemergencydepartmentapropensityscorematchedanalysis
AT jeongseunghee glidescopevideolaryngoscopyversusdirectlaryngoscopyintheemergencydepartmentapropensityscorematchedanalysis