Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30241488›Full record

Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2018

Endotracheal tube-mounted camera-assisted intubation versus conventional intubation in intensive care: a prospective, randomised trial (VivaITN).

Jörn Grensemann, Lars Eichler, Nuowei Wang, Dominik Jarczak, Marcel Simon, Stefan Kluge

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02837055 (Prospective, Randomized Study in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Endotracheal Intubation), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02837055 nacompletednot on this map

Prospective, Randomized Study in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Endotracheal Intubation: Comparison Between a Conventional Approach and Video Assisted Intubation by the VivaSight™-SL Tube

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversitätsklinikum Hamburg-EppendorfRan2016 to 2018Enrolled54ConditionsRespiratory InsufficiencyArmsVivaSight intubation, conventional intubation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Videolaryngoscopy in critically ill patients.Critical care (London, England) · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jörn GrensemannDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany. j.grensemann@uke.de.ORCID 0000-0002-3341-669X
Lars EichlerDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Nuowei WangDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Dominik JarczakDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Marcel SimonDepartment of Respiratory Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Stefan KlugeDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany.
Universität Hamburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor critically ill patients, effective airway management with a high first-attempt success rate for endotracheal intubation is essential to prevent hypoxic complications during securing of the airway. Video guidance may improve first-attempt success rate over direct laryngoscopy (DL).

methodsWith ethics approval, this randomised controlled trial involved 54 critically ill patients who received endotracheal intubation using a tube with an integrated video camera (VivaSight™-SL tube, VST, ETView Ltd., Misgav, Israel) or using conventional intubation under DL.

resultsThe two groups did not differ in terms of intubation conditions. The first-attempt success rate was VST 96% vs. DL 93% (not statistically significant (n. s.)). When intubation at first attempt failed, it was successful in the second attempt in all patients. There was no difference in the median average time to intubation (VST 34 s (interquartile range 28-39) vs. DL 35 s (28-40), n. s.). Neither vomiting nor aspiration or accidental oesophageal intubation were observed in either group. The lowest pulsoxymetric oxygen saturation for VST was 96 (82-99) % vs. 99 (95-100) % for DL (n. s.). Hypotension defined as systolic blood pressure < 70 mmHg occurred in the VST group at 20% vs. the DL group at 15% (n. s.).

conclusionIn this pilot study, no advantage was shown for the VST. The VST should be examined further to identify patient groups that could benefit from intubation with the VST, that is, patients with difficult airway conditions.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02837055 . Registered on 13 June 2016.

Indexed as

AgedCritical CareEquipment DesignFemaleHumansIntubation, IntratrachealLaryngoscopyMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesVideo RecordingAirway management D058109Critical care D003422Diagnostic techniques, Respiratory system D003948Intubation, Intratracheal D007442Respiration, Artificial D012121

Identifiers

PMID30241488
PMCPMC6151025
OpenAlexW2891634772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.