Muhs Amelia L, Seitz Kevin P, Qian Edward T, Imhoff Brant, Wang Li, Prekker Matthew E, Driver Brian E, Trent Stacy A, Resnick-Ault Daniel, Schauer Steven G, Ginde Adit A, Russell Derek W, Gandotra Sheetal, Page David B, Gaillard John P, Smith Lane M, Latimer Andrew J, Mitchell Steven H, Johnson Nicholas J, Ghamande Shekhar A, White Heath D, Gibbs Kevin W, Palakshappa Jessica A, Vonderhaar Derek J, Janz David R, Whitson Micah R, Barnes Christopher R, Dagan Alon, Moskowitz Ari, Krishnamoorthy Vijay, Herbert James T, April Michael D, Joffe Aaron M, Walco Jeremy P, Hughes Christopher G, Shipley Kipp, Maiga Amelia W, Lloyd Bradley D, DeMasi Stephanie C, Self Wesley H, Rice Todd W, Semler Matthew W, Casey Jonathan D
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN.
Chest. 2025 May;167(5):1408-1415. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2024.12.031. Epub 2025 Jan 11.
Airway management is a critical component of the care of patients experiencing cardiac arrest, but data from randomized trials on the use of video vs direct laryngoscopy for intubation in the setting of cardiac arrest are limited. Current American Heart Association guidelines recommend placement of an endotracheal tube either during CPR or shortly after return of spontaneous circulation, but do not provide guidance around intubation methods, including the choice of laryngoscope.
Does use of video laryngoscopy improve the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt, compared with use of direct laryngoscopy, among adults undergoing tracheal intubation after experiencing cardiac arrest?
This secondary analysis of the Direct vs Video Laryngoscope (DEVICE) trial compared video laryngoscopy vs direct laryngoscopy in the subgroup of patients who were intubated after cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt. Additional outcomes included the duration of laryngoscopy.
Among the 1,417 patients in the DEVICE trial, 113 patients (7.9%) experienced cardiac arrest before intubation, of whom 48 patients were randomized to the video laryngoscopy group and 65 patients were randomized to the direct laryngoscopy group. Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 40 of 48 patients (83.3%) in the video laryngoscopy group and in 42 of 65 patients (64.6%) in the direct laryngoscopy group (absolute risk difference, 18.7 percentage points; 95% CI, 1.2-36.2 percentage points; P = .03). The mean duration of laryngoscopy was 48.0 seconds (SD, 37.3 seconds) in the video laryngoscope group and 98.0 seconds (SD, 122.4 seconds) in the direct laryngoscopy group (mean difference, -50.0 seconds; 95% CI, -86.8 to -13.3 seconds; P = .004).
Among adults undergoing tracheal intubation after experiencing cardiac arrest, use of video laryngoscopy was associated with increased incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt and shortened duration of laryngoscopy, compared with use of direct laryngoscopy.
气道管理是心脏骤停患者护理的关键组成部分,但关于在心脏骤停情况下使用视频喉镜与直接喉镜进行插管的随机试验数据有限。美国心脏协会当前的指南建议在心肺复苏期间或自主循环恢复后不久放置气管插管,但未就插管方法提供指导,包括喉镜的选择。
在经历心脏骤停后接受气管插管的成年人中,与使用直接喉镜相比,使用视频喉镜是否能提高首次尝试成功插管的发生率?
这项对直接喉镜与视频喉镜(DEVICE)试验的二次分析比较了心脏骤停后插管患者亚组中视频喉镜与直接喉镜的效果。主要结局是首次尝试成功插管的发生率。其他结局包括喉镜检查的持续时间。
在DEVICE试验的1417名患者中,113名患者(7.9%)在插管前发生心脏骤停,其中48名患者被随机分配至视频喉镜组,65名患者被随机分配至直接喉镜组。视频喉镜组48名患者中有40名(83.3%)首次尝试成功插管,直接喉镜组65名患者中有42名(64.6%)首次尝试成功插管(绝对风险差异为18.7个百分点;95%CI为1.2 - 36.2个百分点;P = 0.03)。视频喉镜组喉镜检查的平均持续时间为48.0秒(标准差为37.3秒),直接喉镜组为98.0秒(标准差为122.4秒)(平均差异为 - 50.0秒;95%CI为 - 86.8至 - 13.3秒;P = 0.004)。
在经历心脏骤停后接受气管插管的成年人中,与使用直接喉镜相比,使用视频喉镜与首次尝试成功插管的发生率增加及喉镜检查持续时间缩短相关。