Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although Video laryngoscope (VL) can reduce the difficulty of endotracheal intubation and improve the glottic view, its use in critically ill patients is controversial. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of VL and direct laryngoscopy (DL) for critically ill patients were searched on electronic databases, including Web of Science, PubMed, and Embase. Additional publications were identified by screening the reference lists of the identified articles and relevant previously published reviews. RESULTS: Overall, 25 RCTs involving 5836 critically ill patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the first intubation rate between the VL and DL groups (25 studies; RR, 1.03; 95% CI 0.96-1.11; n = 5836; p = 0.37; very low certainty). However, Multivariate meta-regression analysis identified two main sources of bias: whether intubation was performed in a hospital (p = 0.04) and operator proficiency with DL compared to VL (p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that VL improved the first intubation rate in in-hospital intubation (19 studies; RR, 1.12; 95% CI 1.04-1.22; n = 4441; p < 0.01, very low certainty) and VL showed good potential to reduce the first-attempt intubation success rates, but not significantly (6 studies; RR, 0.75; 95% CI 0.56-1.00; n = 1395; p = 0.05, very low certainty). In subgroups with similar operator proficiency VL and DL, VL increased the success rate for first intubation (16 studies; RR, 1.14; 95% CI 1.06-1.23; n = 3,971; p < 0.01; very low certainty). However, VL decreased the first intubation rate (4 studies; RR, 0.65; 95% CI 0.49-0.88; n = 810; p < 0.01; very low certainty) in a subgroup where operator proficiency was higher for DL than for VL. CONCLUSION: VL does not increase the first intubation rate. However, VL increases the first-attempt intubation success rate for in-hospital intubation and operators with similar proficiency in VL and DL.