To support seriously ill patients with a breathing machine, doctors must place a breathing tube.  One-in-five times doctors cannot place the breathing tube on the first try.  When the breathing tube cannot be placed on the first try, the risks to the patient for low oxygen levels or blood pressure are higher.  Doctors use two different rod-like devices to help guide a breathing tube it the right place.  One is called a “bougie” and another is called a “stylet”.  Both have been used for many years, but whether one was better than the other for placing a breathing tube on the first attempt was not known.  The BOUGIE trial compared use of a bougie with use of a stylet for 1100 patients in 7 emergency departments and 8 intensive care units across the United States.  The study showed that using a bougie and using a stylet were equally safe and effective.

Importance: For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, failure to intubate the trachea on the first attempt occurs in up to 20% of cases and is associated with severe hypoxemia and cardiac arrest. Whether using a tracheal tube introducer (“bougie”) increases the likelihood of successful intubation compared with using an endotracheal tube with stylet remains uncertain.

Objective: To determine the effect of use of a bougie vs an endotracheal tube with stylet on successful intubation on the first attempt.

Design, setting, and participants: The Bougie or Stylet in Patients Undergoing Intubation Emergently (BOUGIE) trial was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial among 1102 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in 7 emergency departments and 8 intensive care units in the US between April 29, 2019, and February 14, 2021; the date of final follow-up was March 14, 2021.

Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to use of a bougie (n = 556) or use of an endotracheal tube with stylet (n = 546).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the incidence of severe hypoxemia, defined as a peripheral oxygen saturation less than 80%.

Results: Among 1106 patients randomized, 1102 (99.6%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 58 years; 41.0% women). Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 447 patients (80.4%) in the bougie group and 453 patients (83.0%) in the stylet group (absolute risk difference, -2.6 percentage points [95% CI, -7.3 to 2.2]; P = .27). A total of 58 patients (11.0%) in the bougie group experienced severe hypoxemia, compared with 46 patients (8.8%) in the stylet group (absolute risk difference, 2.2 percentage points [95% CI, -1.6 to 6.0]). Esophageal intubation occurred in 4 patients (0.7%) in the bougie group and 5 patients (0.9%) in the stylet group, pneumothorax was present after intubation in 14 patients (2.5%) in the bougie group and 15 patients (2.7%) in the stylet group, and injury to oral, glottic, or thoracic structures occurred in 0 patients in the bougie group and 3 patients (0.5%) in the stylet group.

Conclusions and relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, use of a bougie did not significantly increase the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt compared with use of an endotracheal tube with stylet.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03928925.

For patients being placed on a breathing machine, a breathing tube must be placed in the mouth.  During placement of a breathing tube, low oxygen levels may occur.  Whether placing a breathing tube while the patient’s head and shoulders were elevated (“ramped position”) could prevent low oxygen levels compared to placement of a breathing tube with the patient laying flat (“sniffing position”) was not known.  Among 260 patients in 4 intensive care units, the CHECK-UP trial found that placing a breathing tube in the ramped position did not prevent low oxygen levels.  Placing a breathing tube in the ramped position appeared to be more difficult than placing a breathing tube with the patient in the sniffing position.  These findings suggest that, for many patients in the intensive care unit, placing a breathing tube in the sniffing position may be simpler and easier than in the ramped position.

Background: Hypoxemia is the most common complication during endotracheal intubation of critically ill adults. Intubation in the ramped position has been hypothesized to prevent hypoxemia by increasing functional residual capacity and decreasing the duration of intubation, but has never been studied outside of the operating room.

Methods: Multicenter, randomized trial comparing the ramped position (head of the bed elevated to 25°) with the sniffing position (torso supine, neck flexed, and head extended) among 260 adults undergoing endotracheal intubation by pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows in four ICUs between July 22, 2015, and July 19, 2016. The primary outcome was lowest arterial oxygen saturation between induction and 2 minutes after intubation. Secondary outcomes included Cormack-Lehane grade of glottic view, difficulty of intubation, and number of laryngoscopy attempts.

Results: The median lowest arterial oxygen saturation was 93% (interquartile range [IQR], 84%-99%) with the ramped position vs 92% (IQR, 79%-98%) with the sniffing position (P = .27). The ramped position appeared to increase the incidence of grade III or IV view (25.4% vs 11.5%, P = .01), increase the incidence of difficult intubation (12.3% vs 4.6%, P = .04), and decrease the rate of intubation on the first attempt (76.2% vs 85.4%, P = .02), respectively.

Conclusions: In this multicenter trial, the ramped position did not improve oxygenation during endotracheal intubation of critically ill adults compared with the sniffing position. The ramped position may worsen glottic view and increase the number of laryngoscopy attempts required for successful intubation.

Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02497729; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Keywords: endotracheal intubation; hypoxemia; randomized trial.

Manuscript Title: “A Multicenter, Randomized Trial of Ramped Position vs Sniffing Position During Endotracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults.”

Journal: Chest

PMID: 28487139

Low oxygen level is the most common complication that arises when a critically ill patient is being placed on a breathing machine. Whether providing oxygen and ventilation with a bag-mask device prior to placement of a breathing tube prevents low oxygen levels had been unknown.  Among 401 patients in 7 intensive care units, the PreVent trial found that providing oxygen and ventilation with a bag-mask device was safe, maintained higher oxygen level and prevented dangerously low oxygen levels.  These findings may improve the safety of breathing tube placement for many seriously ill adults.

Background: Hypoxemia is the most common complication during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults and may increase the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Whether positive-pressure ventilation with a bag-mask device (bag-mask ventilation) during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults prevents hypoxemia without increasing the risk of aspiration remains controversial.

Methods: In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted in seven intensive care units in the United States, we randomly assigned adults undergoing tracheal intubation to receive either ventilation with a bag-mask device or no ventilation between induction and laryngoscopy. The primary outcome was the lowest oxygen saturation observed during the interval between induction and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. The secondary outcome was the incidence of severe hypoxemia, defined as an oxygen saturation of less than 80%.

Results: Among the 401 patients enrolled, the median lowest oxygen saturation was 96% (interquartile range, 87 to 99) in the bag-mask ventilation group and 93% (interquartile range, 81 to 99) in the no-ventilation group (P = 0.01). A total of 21 patients (10.9%) in the bag-mask ventilation group had severe hypoxemia, as compared with 45 patients (22.8%) in the no-ventilation group (relative risk, 0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30 to 0.77). Operator-reported aspiration occurred during 2.5% of intubations in the bag-mask ventilation group and during 4.0% in the no-ventilation group (P = 0.41). The incidence of new opacity on chest radiography in the 48 hours after tracheal intubation was 16.4% and 14.8%, respectively (P = 0.73).

Conclusions: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, patients receiving bag-mask ventilation had higher oxygen saturations and a lower incidence of severe hypoxemia than those receiving no ventilation. (Funded by Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and others; PreVent ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03026322.).

Manuscript Title: “Bag-Mask Ventilation during Tracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults.”

Journal: New England Journal of Medicine

PMID: 30779528

Importance: Hypotension is common during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults and increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Whether administering an intravenous fluid bolus to critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation prevents severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death remains uncertain.

Objective: To determine the effect of fluid bolus administration on the incidence of severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, and death.

Design, setting, and participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled 1067 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with sedation and positive pressure ventilation at 11 intensive care units in the US between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. The date of final follow-up was June 21, 2021.

Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 500-mL intravenous fluid bolus (n = 538) or no fluid bolus (n = 527).

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was cardiovascular collapse (defined as new or increased receipt of vasopressors or a systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction of anesthesia and 1 hour after tracheal intubation). The secondary outcome was the incidence of death prior to day 28, which was censored at hospital discharge.

Results: Among 1067 patients randomized, 1065 (99.8%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-70 years]; 42.1% were women). Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 113 patients (21.0%) in the fluid bolus group and in 96 patients (18.2%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, 2.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 7.7%]; P = .25). New or increased receipt of vasopressors occurred in 20.6% of patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 17.6% of patients in the no fluid bolus group, a systolic blood pressure of less than 65 mm Hg occurred in 3.9% vs 4.2%, respectively, cardiac arrest occurred in 1.7% vs 1.5%, and death occurred in 0.7% vs 0.6%. Death prior to day 28 (censored at hospital discharge) occurred in 218 patients (40.5%) in the fluid bolus group compared with 223 patients (42.3%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -7.9% to 4.3%]; P = .55).

Conclusions and relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, administration of an intravenous fluid bolus compared with no fluid bolus did not significantly decrease the incidence of cardiovascular collapse.

Manuscript Title: “Effect of Fluid Bolus Administration on Cardiovascular Collapse Among Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial”

To support seriously ill patients with a breathing machine, doctors must place a breathing tube.  One-in-five times doctors cannot place the breathing tube on the first try.  When the breathing tube cannot be placed on the first try, the risks to the patient for low oxygen levels or blood pressure are higher.  Two types of tools exist for helping see a patients’ vocal cords to place a breathing tube: a device with a camera on it (video laryngoscope) and a device without a camera on it (direct laryngoscope).  Whether placing a breathing tube on the first try is easier with a video laryngoscope or a direct laryngoscope is unknown.  Among 150 patients receiving a breathing tube in one intensive care unit, the FELLOW trial found that, while a video laryngoscope made it easier to see the vocal cords, using a video laryngoscope did not make it easier to place a breathing tube on the first try compared with using a direct laryngoscope.  These findings suggest the need for large, multicenter trials examining whether use of a video laryngoscope can make it easier to place a breathing tube on the first try.

Objective: To evaluate the effect of video laryngoscopy on the rate of endotracheal intubation on first laryngoscopy attempt among critically ill adults.

Design: A randomized, parallel-group, pragmatic trial of video compared with direct laryngoscopy for 150 adults undergoing endotracheal intubation by Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine fellows.

Setting: Medical ICU in a tertiary, academic medical center.

Patients: Critically ill patients 18 years old or older.

Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to video or direct laryngoscopy for the first attempt at endotracheal intubation.

Measurements and main results: Patients assigned to video (n = 74) and direct (n = 76) laryngoscopy were similar at baseline. Despite better glottic visualization with video laryngoscopy, there was no difference in the primary outcome of intubation on the first laryngoscopy attempt (video 68.9% vs direct 65.8%; p = 0.68) in unadjusted analyses or after adjustment for the operator’s previous experience with the assigned device (odds ratio for video laryngoscopy on intubation on first attempt 2.02; 95% CI, 0.82-5.02, p = 0.12). Secondary outcomes of time to intubation, lowest arterial oxygen saturation, complications, and in-hospital mortality were not different between video and direct laryngoscopy.

Conclusions: In critically ill adults undergoing endotracheal intubation, video laryngoscopy improves glottic visualization but does not appear to increase procedural success or decrease complications.

Manuscript Title: “Randomized Trial of Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults.”

Journal: Critical Care Medicine

PMID: 27355526

Low oxygen levels is the most common complication that arises when a critically ill patient is being placed on a breathing machine. Whether providing oxygen with a small tube below the nose (“nasal cannula”) during the placement of a breathing tube prevents low oxygen levels had been unknown.  Among 150 patients receiving a breathing tube in one intensive care unit, the FELLOW Trial found that giving oxygen through a nasal cannula during the placement of a breathing tube did not prevent low oxygen levels.  These findings suggest that doctors should focus on other treatments that may prevent low oxygen levels during placement of a breathing tube.

Rationale: Hypoxemia is common during endotracheal intubation of critically ill patients and may predispose to cardiac arrest and death. Administration of supplemental oxygen during laryngoscopy (apneic oxygenation) may prevent hypoxemia.

Objectives: To determine if apneic oxygenation increases the lowest arterial oxygen saturation experienced by patients undergoing endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit.

Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, pragmatic trial in which 150 adults undergoing endotracheal intubation in a medical intensive care unit were randomized to receive 15 L/min of 100% oxygen via high-flow nasal cannula during laryngoscopy (apneic oxygenation) or no supplemental oxygen during laryngoscopy (usual care). The primary outcome was lowest arterial oxygen saturation between induction and 2 minutes after completion of endotracheal intubation.

Measurements and main results: Median lowest arterial oxygen saturation was 92% with apneic oxygenation versus 90% with usual care (95% confidence interval for the difference, -1.6 to 7.4%; P = 0.16). There was no difference between apneic oxygenation and usual care in incidence of oxygen saturation less than 90% (44.7 vs. 47.2%; P = 0.87), oxygen saturation less than 80% (15.8 vs. 25.0%; P = 0.22), or decrease in oxygen saturation greater than 3% (53.9 vs. 55.6%; P = 0.87). Duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit length of stay, and in-hospital mortality were similar between study groups.

Conclusions: Apneic oxygenation does not seem to increase lowest arterial oxygen saturation during endotracheal intubation of critically ill patients compared with usual care. These findings do not support routine use of apneic oxygenation during endotracheal intubation of critically ill adults. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 02051816).

Manuscript Title: “Randomized Trial of Apneic Oxygenation during Endotracheal Intubation of the Critically Ill.”

Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

PMID: 27355526

When a patient requiring a breathing machine is ready to be disconnected from that machine, providing additional oxygen support using a mask over the patient’s mouth (called “non-invasive ventilation”) or a large tube under their nose (called “high flow nasal cannula”) had been reported to decrease the likelihood of the patient needing to be put back on the breathing machine. The PROPER Trial assessed over 750 intensive care unit patients to determine whether additional oxygen support with non-invasive ventilation or high flow nasal cannula reduced the need to go back on a breathing machine within 96 hours after initially being taken off. The results showed that receiving the additional support did not prevent the need to go back on a breathing machine. These findings suggest doctors can provide support with the devices for some patients who they think will benefit, but do not need to provide support with these devices for every patient.

Rationale: Respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula) applied at the time of extubation has been reported to reduce reintubation rates, but concerns regarding effectiveness have limited uptake into practice.

Objectives: To determine if providing postextubation respiratory support to all patients undergoing extubation in a medical ICU would decrease the incidence of reintubation.

Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, two-armed, cluster-crossover trial of adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation between October 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, in the medical ICU of an academic medical center. Patients were assigned to either protocolized postextubation respiratory support (a respiratory therapist-driven protocol in which patients with suspected hypercapnia received noninvasive ventilation and patients without suspected hypercapnia received high-flow nasal cannula) or usual care (postextubation management at the discretion of treating clinicians). The primary outcome was reintubation within 96 hours of extubation.

Measurements and Main Results: A total of 751 patients were enrolled. Of the 359 patients assigned to protocolized support, 331 (92.2%) received postextubation respiratory support compared with 66 of 392 patients (16.8%) assigned to usual care, a difference driven by differential use of high-flow nasal cannula (74.7% vs. 2.8%). A total of 57 patients (15.9%) in the protocolized support group experienced reintubation compared with 52 patients (13.3%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.84; P = 0.32).

Conclusions: Among a broad population of critically ill adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation at an academic medical center, protocolized postextubation respiratory support, primarily characterized by an increase in the use of high-flow nasal cannula, did not prevent reintubation compared with usual care.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT0328831).

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03288311.

Keywords: invasive mechanical ventilation; noninvasive respiratory support; reintubation.

Manuscript Title: “Protocolized Postextubation Respiratory Support to Prevent Reintubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.”

Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

PMID: 33794131

For patients on a breathing machine, doctors may secure the breathing tube in place using either adhesive tape or an endotracheal tube fastener.  The ETTS Trial compared the securement technique of adhesive tape versus an endotracheal tube fastener for patients in the medical intensive care unit expected to require a breathing machine for more than 24 hours. Safety and efficacy of the two techniques were compared by evaluating the presence of lip ulcers, the tube becoming dislodged from the patient, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or facial skin tears. Results of the study showed that the use of the endotracheal tube fastener reduced the rate of lip ulcers, tube dislodgement, and skin tears compared to the use of adhesive tape. The findings suggest that using an endotracheal tube fastener will reduce the rate of these events, may improve patient safety, and may decrease the cost of care.

Background: The optimal securement method of endotracheal tubes is unknown but should prevent dislodgement while minimizing complications. The use of an endotracheal tube fastener might reduce complications among critically ill adults undergoing endotracheal intubation.

Methods: In this pragmatic, single-center, randomized trial, critically ill adults admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) and expected to require invasive mechanical ventilation for greater than 24 h were randomized to adhesive tape or endotracheal tube fastener at the time of intubation. The primary endpoint was a composite of any of the following: presence of lip ulcer, endotracheal tube dislodgement (defined as moving at least 2 cm), ventilator-associated pneumonia, or facial skin tears anytime between randomization and the earlier of death or 48 h after extubation. Secondary endpoints included duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU and in-hospital mortality.

Results: Of 500 patients randomized over a 12-month period, 162 had a duration of mechanical ventilation less than 24 h and 40 had missing outcome data, leaving 153 evaluable patients randomized to tube fastener and 145 evaluable patients randomized to adhesive tape. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint occurred 13 times in 12 (7.8%) patients in the tube fastener group and 30 times in 25 (17.2%) patients in the adhesive tape group (p = 0.014) for an overall incidence of 22.0 versus 52.6 per 1000 ventilator days, respectively (p = 0.020). Lip ulcers occurred in 4 (2.6%) versus 11 (7.3%) patients, or an incidence rate of 6.5 versus 19.5 per 1000 patient ventilator days (p = 0.053) in the fastener and tape groups, respectively. The endotracheal tube was dislodged 7 times in 6 (3.9%) patients in the tube fastener group and 16 times in 15 (10.3%) patients in the tape group (p = 0.03), reflecting incidences of 11.9 and 28.1 per 1000 ventilator days, respectively. Facial skin tears were similar between the groups. Mechanical ventilation duration and ICU and hospital mortality did not differ.

Conclusion: The use of the endotracheal tube fastener to secure the endotracheal tubes reduces the rate of a composite outcome that included lip ulcers, facial skin tears, or endotracheal tube dislodgement compared to adhesive tape.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03760510. Retrospectively registered on November 30, 2018.

Keywords: Critical care; Endotracheal tube; Endotracheal tube dislodgement; Facial skin tear; Intensive care units; Lip ulcer; Mechanical ventilation; Tube fastener.

Manuscript Title: “The effect of adhesive tape versus endotracheal tube fastener in critically ill adults: the endotracheal tube securement (ETTS) randomized controlled trial.”

Journal: Critical Care

PMID: 31064406

Patients in the intensive care unit who require treatment with a breathing machine may develop serious problems with blood pressure or heart rhythm while the breathing tube is being placed.  To learn whether problems with blood pressure or heart rhythms could be prevented by giving patients fluid through an IV, we led a research study called PREPARE.  The PREPARE trial included 337 patients from 8 intensive care units and one emergency department. The trial found that giving fluid through an IV did not prevent seriously low blood pressure, but that the fluid might have been helpful for some patients receiving oxygen through a mask before the procedure (called “non-invasive ventilation”).  These results suggested that IV fluid might prevent low blood pressure among patients on non-invasive ventilation prior to placement of a breathing tube And were the basis for the PREPAREII trial (described above).

Background: Tracheal intubation is common in the care of critically ill adults and is frequently complicated by hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death. We aimed to evaluate administration of an intravenous fluid bolus to prevent cardiovascular collapse during intubation of critically ill adults.

Methods: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, unblinded, randomised trial in nine sites (eight ICUs and one emergency department) around the USA. Critically ill adults (≥18 years) undergoing tracheal intubation were randomly assigned (1:1, block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, stratified by study site) to either an intravenous infusion of 500 mL of crystalloid solution or no fluid bolus. The primary outcome, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was cardiovascular collapse, defined as a new systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg; new or increased vasopressor receipt between induction and 2 min after tracheal intubation; or cardiac arrest or death within 1 h of tracheal intubation. Adverse events were assessed in the as-treated population. This trial, which is now complete, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03026777.

Findings: Patients were enrolled from Feb 6, 2017, to Jan 9, 2018, when the data and safety monitoring board stopped the trial on the basis of futility. By trial termination, 337 (63%) of 537 screened adults had been randomly assigned. Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 33 (20%) of 168 patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 31 (18%) of 169 patients in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI -7·1% to 9·7%]; p=0·76). The individual components of the cardiovascular collapse composite outcome did not differ between groups (new systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg 11 [7%] in the bolus group vs ten [6%] in the no-bolus group, new or increased vasopressor 32 [19%] vs 31 [18%], cardiac arrest within 1 h seven [4%] vs two [1%], death within 1 h of intubation two [1%] vs one [1%]). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different in the fluid bolus group (48 [29%]) compared with no fluid bolus (59 [35%]).

Interpretation: Administration of an intravenous fluid bolus did not decrease the overall incidence of cardiovascular collapse during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults compared with no fluid bolus in this trial.

Funding: US National Institutes of Health.

Manuscript Title: “Effect of a fluid bolus on cardiovascular collapse among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation (PrePARE): a randomised controlled trial.”

Journal: Lancet Respiratory Medicine

PMID: 31585796

What we need to learn

When a patient needs a breathing machine, a breathing tube is placed through the mouth and into the windpipe. Difficulty placing the breathing tube may cause serious problems with low oxygen levels, low blood pressure, or injury to the windpipe or lungs. To place the breathing tube, doctors use a tool called a “scope” to see past the tongue for placement of the breathing tube in the windpipe. Two types of “scope” are commonly used. One is called a “video laryngoscope” and another is called a “direct laryngoscope”. The DEVICE trial compared use of a video laryngoscope with use of a direct laryngoscope in 1,417 patients in 7 emergency departments and 10 intensive care units across the United States. The study showed that use of a video laryngoscope increased the probability of successful breathing tube placement on the first attempt.

Importance

For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, failure to intubate the trachea on the first attempt occurs in up to 20% of cases and is associated with severe hypoxemia and cardiac arrest. Before the DEVICE trial it remained unknown whether use of a video laryngoscope or use of a direct laryngoscopes was better for patients.’

Objective

To compare the effect of use of a video laryngoscope versus a direct laryngoscope on successful intubation on the first attempt among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in the acute care setting. Design, setting, and participants: The DirEct Versus Video LaryngosCopE (DEVICE) trial was a multi-center, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomized clinical trial among 1,417 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation in 7 emergency departments and 10 ICUs in 11 medical centers across the United States.

Interventions

Patients were randomly assigned to the video laryngoscope group (n =705) or the direct laryngoscope group (n = 712).

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the incidence of severe complications.

Results

Among 1417 patients who were included in the final analysis, successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 600 patients (85.1%) in the video-laryngoscope group and in 504 patients (70.8%) in the direct-laryngoscope group (absolute risk difference, 14.3 percentage points; 95% CI, 9.9 to 18.7; P<0.001). A total of 151 patients (21.4%) in the video-laryngoscope group and 149 patients (20.9%) in the direct- laryngoscope group had a severe complication during intubation (absolute risk difference,

0.5 percentage points; 95% CI, −3.9 to 4.9). Safety outcomes, including esophageal intubation, injury to the teeth, and aspiration, were similar in the two groups.

Conclusions and relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in an emergency department or ICU, the use of a video laryngoscope resulted in a higher incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt than the use of a direct laryngoscope.

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05239195
Manuscript Title: Video versus Direct Laryngoscopy for Tracheal Intubation of
Critically Ill Adults.
Journal: New England Journal of Medicine
PMID: 37326325

More information

This study is called “Direct Versus Video Laryngoscope (DEVICE)” and is funded by the U.S. Department of Defense. Our goal is to learn whether a “scope” with a video screen or a “scope” without a video screen is better for placing a breathing tube and preventing problems with oxygen levels and blood pressure. Participating in this study will not impact the quality of care patients receive. For each patient:

• When the doctors feel a “scope” with a video screen would be best for a patient, the team will use a “scope” with a video screen.
• When the doctors feel that a “scope” without a video screen would be best for a patient, the team will use a “scope” without a video screen.
• When the doctors do not have a preference, the patient will be assessed against the inclusion / exclusion criteria and when appropriate, enrolled in DEVICE. Once the patient is enrolled in DEVICE, the type of “scope” is assigned randomly, meaning that every patient will have a fair and equal chance of getting either type of “scope.”

Questions

If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact the Principal Investigator, Dr. Jonathan Casey. He will be glad to answer any study-related questions. Dr. Casey’s phone number is (615) 208-6139. If you have questions about your rights as a research participant, or concerns or complaints about the research, you may also contact the Vanderbilt Human Research Protections Program at (615)- 322-2918.

Participating Sites

Vanderbilt; Denver Health; Ochsner; University of Washington; Duke University; University of Alabama, Birmingham; Baylor, Scott &White; University of Colorado, Denver; Hennepin County Medical Center; Wake Forest; Brooke Army Medical Center, Beth Israel Deaconess,

Trial Update

On November 17^th 2022, the investigators were notified by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board that the DEVICE trial had met the prespecified stopping criteria at the time of the single interim analysis.  Enrollment in the trial was stopped and investigators and clinicians at participating sites were notified.