A single-centre, randomised controlled feasibility pilot trial comparing performance of direct laryngoscopy versus videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation in surgical patients

• Main Authors: Alice Loughnan, Carolyn Deng, Felicity Dominick, Lora Pencheva, Doug Campbell
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2019-03-01
• Series: Pilot and Feasibility Studies
• Subjects: Endotracheal intubation; Direct laryngoscopy; Videolaryngoscopy; Airway management
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40814-019-0433-6

Abstract Introduction Most trials comparing effectiveness of laryngoscopy technique use surrogate endpoints. Intubation success is a more appropriate endpoint for comparing effectiveness of techniques or devices. A large pragmatic clinical trial powered for intubation success has not yet been performed. Methods We tested the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to compare the performance of direct laryngoscopy versus videolaryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation. The trial was conducted in the Department of Adult and Emergency Anaesthesia at the Auckland City Hospital, New Zealand. Patients over 18 years who required endotracheal intubation and were not known or predicted to be difficult to bag-mask ventilate were eligible for the study. Patients were excluded if they required rapid sequence induction, fibreoptic intubation or were unable to consent due to language barriers or cognitive impairment. Patients were permuted block randomised in groups of 8 to either direct laryngoscopy (DL) or videolaryngoscopy (VL) for the technique of endotracheal intubation. Patients were blinded to laryngoscopic technique; the duty anaesthetist, outcome assessors and statistician were unblinded. Feasibility was assessed on recruitment rate, adherence to group assignment and data completeness. Primary outcome was first-pass success rate, with secondary outcomes of time to intubation (seconds), Intubation Difficulty Score and complication rate. Results One hundred and six patients were randomised and 100 patient results were analysed. Completed data from patients randomised to the DL group (n = 49) was compared with those in the VL group (n = 51). Group adherence and data completeness were 100% and 97%, respectively. First-pass success rate was 83.7% in the direct laryngoscopy group and 72.5% in the videolaryngoscopy group (p = 0.18). Median time to intubation was significantly shorter for direct laryngoscopy when compared to videolaryngoscopy (34 s v 43 s, p = 0.038). Complications included mucosal trauma and airway bleeding which are recognised complications of endotracheal intubation. Conclusion A large, pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing the relative effectiveness of direct laryngoscopy and indirect videolaryngoscopy is feasible. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12615001267549