DEVICE: Video vs Direct Laryngoscopy for intubating critically ill adults

DEVICE trial

Conclusion: Video laryngoscopy results in higher rates of first-pass success when intubating critically ill adults in an Emergency Department or ICU

  • The DEVICE trial seeks to answer the question of whether to choose VL or DL when intubating adults within the Emergency Department or ICU
  • Failure to intubate the trachea on the first attempt occurs in 20 to 30% of tracheal intubations performed in the emergency department or intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with an increased risk of life-threatening complications
  • Several single-center trials and a moderate-sized multicenter trial have been conducted to compare the outcomes when VL vs DL is used, and these trials showed differing results, including better outcomes with a VL, better outcomes with DL, and no significant differences in outcomes between the two types
  • One major issue has been that most prior studies have been either retrospective observational or prospective studies randomised according to a factor other than blade type
  • This was a large, multicenter, unblinded, prospective randomised trial from 7 EDs and 10 ICUs across the United States enrolling patients 18 yrs or older undergoing endotracheal intubation
    • Those who were pregnant, prisoners, had an immediate need for tracheal intubation that precluded randomisation, or had a clinician-determined need for a particular device choice on first attempt were excluded
  • The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt, defined as the placement of an ETT in the trachea with a single insertion of a laryngoscope blade (+/- bougie) and ETT into the mouth
    • The secondary outcome was a composite of severe hypoxemia, hypotension, need for vasopressors, cardiac arrest, or death within 2 minutes after the procedure
  • 1947 patients were assessed for eligibility, of whom 1420 (72.9%) were enrolled
    • 3 were subsequently identified as prisoners and therefore excluded
  • Patient characteristics were similar across groups, with a mean age of approximately 55 years, a mean BMI of 26.5 kg/m2
    • 70% of intubations occurring in the ED
      • Median number of previous intubations performed: 50 vs 50
      • Resident intubators: 73% vs 71%
    • Altered mental status or pneumonia being the primary indications for intubation in most cases (45% and 30%, respectively)
  • Protocol adherence was high VL used in 100.0% of those randomised to the VL group, while DL was used in 98.9% of the DL group
  • Results: Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 600 of the 705 patients (85.1%) in the VL group and in 504 of the 712 patients (70.8%) in the DL group (absolute risk difference, 14.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 9.9 to 18.7; P<0.001) 
    • A Grade 1 view (Cormack-Lehane) was reported in 76.3% of the VL group vs 44.7% of the DL group (absolute risk difference, 31.6 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26.7 to 36.6)
    • There was no significant difference in the composite secondary outcome between groups
    • The study was stopped early with these results following a planned interim analysis
  • Strengths:
    • Very well done RCT with robust study design
    • Multicentre study that increases external validity
    • Reflective of real work practise with decision of blade type (standard geometry vs hyperangulated) left up to treating clinician
  • Limitations:
    • Relative inexperience group of intubators limits generalisability to more experienced clinicians, supported by the fact that the between group difference decreased to 5.9% among operators with >100 prior intubations (still favouring VL)
    • There was a high baseline usage of VL compared to DL which may have affected performance in the DL group due to unfamiliarity with the device

Reference: Prekker ME, Driver BE, Trent SA, et al. Video versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults. N Engl J Med. 2023 Aug 3;389(5):418-429. 

Full article: https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2301601

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *