PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Maitra, Souvik
AU  - Som, Anirban
AU  - Bhattacharjee, Sulagna
TI  - Comparison of videolaryngoscope & direct laryngoscope for intubation in critically ill patients: A Bayesian meta-analysis
AID  - 10.1101/2020.04.21.20074153
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.04.21.20074153
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/24/2020.04.21.20074153.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/04/24/2020.04.21.20074153.full
AB  - Purpose To identify the benefit of video laryngoscope (VL) over direct laryngoscope (DL) for intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU)Material & Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VL with DL for intubation in ICU by was conducted in conventional frequentist methodology and also incorporated of the previous evidences from observational studies in Bayesian methodology.Results Data of 1464 patients from six RCTs have been included in this meta-analysis. In conventional meta-analysis of RCTs, first attempt intubation success rate was similar between VL and DL group [p=0.39]. Rate of esophageal intubation was significantly less with VL [p=0.03] and glottic visualization was significantly improved with VL in comparison to DL [p=0.009]. Time to intubation was similar in both the group [p=0.48]. When evidences from a meta-analysis of observational studies incorporated in Bayesian model, first attempt intubation success is significantly higher with VL [posterior median log OR (95% credible interval) 0.50 (0.06, 1.00)].Conclusion Evidences from both observational studies and RCTs synthesized in Bayesian methodology suggest that use of VL for endotracheal intubation in critically patients may be associated with higher first intubation success when compared to DL.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding receivedAuthor DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData will be available from the authors