Video vs. traditional laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation at birth or in the neonatal unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 2.1 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Joe Fawke , Daniela T. Costa-Nobre , Jasmine Antoine , Ruth Guinsburg , Maria Fernanda de Almeida , Georg M. Schmölzer , Myra H. Wyckoff , Gary M. Weiner , Helen G. Liley , the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force
{"title":"Video vs. traditional laryngoscopy for tracheal intubation at birth or in the neonatal unit: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Joe Fawke ,&nbsp;Daniela T. Costa-Nobre ,&nbsp;Jasmine Antoine ,&nbsp;Ruth Guinsburg ,&nbsp;Maria Fernanda de Almeida ,&nbsp;Georg M. Schmölzer ,&nbsp;Myra H. Wyckoff ,&nbsp;Gary M. Weiner ,&nbsp;Helen G. Liley ,&nbsp;the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation Neonatal Life Support Task Force","doi":"10.1016/j.resplu.2025.100965","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Videolaryngoscopy may increase neonatal intubation success when used by neonatologists and anesthesiologists. It is not known if this is true for intubations by neonatal clinicians only in neonatal units or on delivery suites.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To critically appraise evidence on the success of tracheal intubation with video laryngoscopy compared to traditional laryngoscopy in infants at birth or in a neonatal unit.</div></div><div><h3>Data sources</h3><div>Systematic review of studies identified by MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Clinical Trial Databases searched from inception to August 22, 2024, without language restrictions.</div></div><div><h3>Inclusion criteria</h3><div>Studies that addressed the PICOST question: In infants receiving tracheal intubation at birth or on a neonatal unit (population), does video laryngoscopy (intervention), compared with traditional laryngoscopy (comparator), improve success (outcome)? Studies that included preoperative intubation or studies of video laryngoscopy use specifically for difficult airways were excluded.</div></div><div><h3>Study appraisal and synthesis methods</h3><div>Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 or ROBINS-I, meta-analysis using RevMan v. 5.4.1, and certainty of evidence using GRADEPro. Studied outcomes were successful tracheal intubation, successful intubation at first attempt, in-hospital mortality, adverse events attributed to laryngoscopy and perception of the intubating clinician.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Of 1261 records screened, six randomized controlled trials reporting 817 infants receiving 862 tracheal intubations were included. Success of intubation was higher overall with video laryngoscopy <strong>[</strong>relative risk 1.43; 95% confidence interval 1.15–1.77; <em>p</em>-value = 0.001; moderate certainty evidence] and at first attempt [relative risk 1.56; 95% confidence interval 1.33–1.84; <em>p</em>-value &lt;0.001; high certainty evidence]. For mortality or adverse outcomes including airway trauma, esophageal intubation, desaturation &lt;80%, bradycardia to either &lt;60 or &lt;100 beats/minute, clinical benefit or harm could not be excluded. Two randomised controlled trials reported intubator perceptions, but results could not be combined. Most of the first attempts in the randomised controlled trials were by inexperienced intubators. Four observational studies (3,289 infants; 3,342 intubations) showed increased success at first attempt with video laryngoscopy [relative risk 1.78; 95% confidence interval 1.16–2.74; <em>p</em>-value &lt;0.001; very low certainty evidence].</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>For infants in the delivery room or neonatal unit, use of video laryngoscopy improved overall and first attempt intubation success.</div><div><strong>Prospero Registration:</strong> CRD42023467940.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":94192,"journal":{"name":"Resuscitation plus","volume":"23 ","pages":"Article 100965"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Resuscitation plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266652042500102X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Videolaryngoscopy may increase neonatal intubation success when used by neonatologists and anesthesiologists. It is not known if this is true for intubations by neonatal clinicians only in neonatal units or on delivery suites.

Objective

To critically appraise evidence on the success of tracheal intubation with video laryngoscopy compared to traditional laryngoscopy in infants at birth or in a neonatal unit.

Data sources

Systematic review of studies identified by MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and Clinical Trial Databases searched from inception to August 22, 2024, without language restrictions.

Inclusion criteria

Studies that addressed the PICOST question: In infants receiving tracheal intubation at birth or on a neonatal unit (population), does video laryngoscopy (intervention), compared with traditional laryngoscopy (comparator), improve success (outcome)? Studies that included preoperative intubation or studies of video laryngoscopy use specifically for difficult airways were excluded.

Study appraisal and synthesis methods

Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 or ROBINS-I, meta-analysis using RevMan v. 5.4.1, and certainty of evidence using GRADEPro. Studied outcomes were successful tracheal intubation, successful intubation at first attempt, in-hospital mortality, adverse events attributed to laryngoscopy and perception of the intubating clinician.

Results

Of 1261 records screened, six randomized controlled trials reporting 817 infants receiving 862 tracheal intubations were included. Success of intubation was higher overall with video laryngoscopy [relative risk 1.43; 95% confidence interval 1.15–1.77; p-value = 0.001; moderate certainty evidence] and at first attempt [relative risk 1.56; 95% confidence interval 1.33–1.84; p-value <0.001; high certainty evidence]. For mortality or adverse outcomes including airway trauma, esophageal intubation, desaturation <80%, bradycardia to either <60 or <100 beats/minute, clinical benefit or harm could not be excluded. Two randomised controlled trials reported intubator perceptions, but results could not be combined. Most of the first attempts in the randomised controlled trials were by inexperienced intubators. Four observational studies (3,289 infants; 3,342 intubations) showed increased success at first attempt with video laryngoscopy [relative risk 1.78; 95% confidence interval 1.16–2.74; p-value <0.001; very low certainty evidence].

Conclusion

For infants in the delivery room or neonatal unit, use of video laryngoscopy improved overall and first attempt intubation success.
Prospero Registration: CRD42023467940.
视频与传统喉镜在新生儿或新生儿病房气管插管中的比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析
背景:当新生儿医生和麻醉师使用视频喉镜时,可能会增加新生儿插管成功率。目前尚不清楚这是否适用于新生儿临床医生仅在新生儿病房或分娩套房插管。目的评价视频喉镜下气管插管与传统喉镜下气管插管在新生儿或新生儿病房成功的证据。数据来源:对MEDLINE、Embase、Cochrane图书馆、CINAHL和临床试验数据库检索的研究进行系统评价,检索时间从研究开始到2024年8月22日,无语言限制。纳入标准解决PICOST问题的研究:在出生时或新生儿病房(人群)接受气管插管的婴儿中,与传统喉镜(比较者)相比,视频喉镜(干预)是否提高了成功率(结果)?包括术前插管或专门用于困难气道的视频喉镜的研究被排除在外。研究评价和综合方法采用Cochrane Risk of bias 2或ROBINS-I评估偏倚风险,采用RevMan v. 5.4.1进行meta分析,采用GRADEPro评估证据的确定性。研究结果包括气管插管成功、首次插管成功、住院死亡率、喉镜检查引起的不良事件和插管临床医生的认知。结果在筛选的1261份记录中,包括6项随机对照试验,报告了817例接受862例气管插管的婴儿。视频喉镜插管成功率总体较高[相对危险度1.43;95%置信区间1.15-1.77;p值= 0.001;中等确定性证据]和第一次尝试时[相对风险1.56;95%置信区间1.33-1.84;假定值& lt; 0.001;高确定性证据]。对于死亡率或不良结果,包括气道损伤、食管插管、去饱和率80%、心动过缓至60或100次/分钟,不能排除临床获益或损害。两项随机对照试验报告了插管器感知,但结果不能合并。在随机对照试验中,大多数首次尝试插管的人都是没有经验的插管者。4项观察性研究(3289名婴儿;3,342例插管)显示视频喉镜首次尝试的成功率增加[相对危险度1.78;95%置信区间1.16-2.74;假定值& lt; 0.001;非常低的确定性证据]。结论对于产房或新生儿病房的婴儿,使用视频喉镜可提高整体插管成功率和首次插管成功率。普洛斯彼罗注册:CRD42023467940。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Resuscitation plus
Resuscitation plus Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine, Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信