Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 93–98 | Cite as

Comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of patients with difficult airway characteristics in the emergency department

  • John Constantine SaklesEmail author
  • Asad E. Patanwala
  • Jarrod M. Mosier
  • John Michael Dicken


The objective of the study is to compare the efficacy of video laryngoscopy (VL) to direct laryngoscopy (DL) on the first pass intubation success of patients with difficult airway characteristics (DACs) in the emergency department (ED). Over a 6-year period, between July 1 2007 and June 30 2013, all intubations performed in an academic ED were recorded in a continuous quality improvement (CQI) database by the operators. The CQI form included information such as patient demographics, operator level of training, device(s) used, number of attempts and outcome of each attempt. In addition, operators performed a difficult airway assessment and noted the presence or absence of the following difficult airway characteristics (DACs): airway edema, cervical immobility, facial/neck trauma, large tongue, obesity, short neck, small mandible, and blood or vomit in the airway. Patients <18 years of age and those not intubated by an emergency physician (EP) were excluded from the analysis. Multivariate regression models were developed to determine the effect of device type (VL or DL) on first pass intubation success as the number of DACs increased. A total of 2,423 intubations were included in this study. First pass success by the number of DACs was as follows in the VL and DL groups, respectively: no DACs [90.8 % (95 % CI 87.5–93.4) vs. 82.0 % (95 % CI 78.0–85.5)]; one DAC [85.1 % (95 % CI 81.2–88.5 %) vs. 69.4 % (95 % CI 63.9–74.5 %)]; two DACs [(80.5 % (95 % CI 74.7–85.6 %) vs. 65.8 % (95 % CI 57.6–73.3 %)]; three or more DACs [68.9 % (95 % CI 63.8–73.7 %) vs. 54.1 % (95 % CI 46.3–61.8 %)]. After adjusting for potential confounders, VL was associated with higher odds of first pass success for patients with no DACs (aOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2–3.3), one DAC (aOR 3.2, 95 % CI 1.9–5.6), two DACs (aOR 2.3, 95 % CI 1.1–4.9), and three or more DACs (aOR 2.9, 95 % CI 1.5–5.5). In patients with DACs, VL was associated with a higher first pass success than DL. VL is recommended as the primary intubating device for patients with predicted difficult airways in the ED.


Video laryngoscopy Difficult airway Emergency intubation 


Conflict of interest



  1. 1.
    Mort TC (2004) Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg 99(2):607–613PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sakles JC, Chiu S, Mosier J, Walker C, Stolz U (2013) The importance of first pass success when performing orotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 20(1):71–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hasegawa K, Shigemitsu K, Hagiwara Y, Chiba T, Watase H, Brown CA 3rd, Brown DF(2012) Japanese Emergency Medicine Research Alliance Investigators.Association between repeated intubation attempts and adverse events in emergency departments: an analysis of a multicenter prospective observational study. Ann Emerg Med 60(6):749–754Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Orebaugh SL (2002) Difficult airway management in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 22(1):31–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wong E, Ng YY (2008) The difficult airway in the emergency department. Int J Emerg Med 1(2):107–111PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soyuncu S, Eken C, Cete Y, Bektas F, Akcimen M (2009) Determination of difficult intubation in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 27(8):905–910PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sakles JC, Laurin EG, Rantapaa AA, Panacek EA (1998) Airway management in the emergency department: a one-year study of 610 tracheal intubations. Ann Emerg Med 31(3):325–332PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Walls RM, Brown CA 3rd, Bair AE, Pallin DJ (2011) NEAR II Investigators. Emergency airway management: a multi-center report of 8937 emergency department intubations. J Emerg Med 41(4):347–54Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Niforopoulou P, Pantazopoulos I, Demestiha T, Koudouna E, Xanthos T (2010) Video-laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: a topical review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 54(9):1050–1061PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Healy DW, Maties O, Hovord D, Kheterpal S (2012) A systematic review of the role of videolaryngoscopy in successful orotracheal intubation. BMC Anesthesiol 12:32Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen JC, Shyr MH (2012) Role of video laryngoscopy in the management of difficult intubations in the emergency department and during prehospital care. Tzu Chi Med J 24:100–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Platts-Mills TF, Campagne D, Chinnock B, Snowden B, Glickman LT, Hendey GW (2009) A comparison of Glide Scope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department. Acad Emerg Med 16(9):866–871PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sakles JC, Mosier J, Chiu S, Cosentino M, Kalin L (2012) A comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 60(6):739–748PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sakles JC, Mosier JM, Chiu S, Keim SM (2012) Tracheal intubation in the emergency department: a comparison of Glide Scope® video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy in 822 intubations. J Emerg Med 42(4):400–405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lee YK, Chen CC, Wang TL, Lin KJ, Su YC (2012) Comparison of video and direct laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in emergency settings: a meta-analysis. J Acute Med 2:43–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bair AE, Caravelli R, Tyler K, Laurin EG (2010) Feasibility of the preoperative Mallampati airway assessment in emergency department patients. J Emerg Med 38(5):677–680PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levitan RM, Everett WW, Ochroch EA (2004) Limitations of difficult airway prediction in patients intubated in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 44(4):307–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mosier JM, Stolz U, Chiu S, Sakles JC (2012) Difficult airway management in the emergency department: Glide Scope videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy. J Emerg Med 42(6):629–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R, Brambrink AM (2012) Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology 116(3):629–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Serocki G, Bein B, Scholz J, Dörges V (2010) Management of the predicted difficult airway: a comparison of conventional blade laryngoscopy with video-assisted blade laryngoscopy and the GlideScope. Eur J Anaesthesiol 27(1):24–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jungbauer A, Schumann M, Brunkhorst V, Börgers A, Groeben H (2009) Expected difficult tracheal intubation: a prospective comparison of direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth 102(4):546–550PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SIMI 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • John Constantine Sakles
    • 1
    Email author
  • Asad E. Patanwala
    • 1
  • Jarrod M. Mosier
    • 1
  • John Michael Dicken
    • 1
  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations