Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of cardiac arrest patients in hospital: A systematic literature review.

Aims: Airway management during cardiopulmonary resuscitation may involve endotracheal intubation complicated by associated difficulties. Videolaryngoscopy may help to ease these difficulties and increase success rates by removing the need to achieve a direct line of sight required by standard direct laryngoscopy. This literature review aims to establish if there is an overall benefit in using videolaryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy when intubating patients during cardiac arrest in the non-theatre hospital environment. Methods: The review was registered on PROSPERO (record ID 329987). A systematic search was conducted of EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science for literature comparing the use of videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy during intubation of cardiac arrest patients in hospital up until 4th May 2022. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database was accessed, and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were analysed for further papers. Forward and backward citation tracking was carried out of the shortlisted papers to hand-search for any further relevant studies. Papers were included in the review if they used adult patients, the patients were intubated during cardiac arrest in hospital and if the papers were in English language or had an accessible translation. Papers were excluded if patients were intubated not during cardiac arrest, the studies were based outside of a hospital setting or in the operating theatre, the patients were paediatric or if the study used a simulation or manikin. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists were used to assess risk of bias. Odds ratios, confidence intervals and probability values were used to synthesise results. Results: Six studies were identified that collectively analysed 4525 patients who were intubated during cardiac arrest in the non-theatre hospital environment; five studies were observational and one a randomised controlled trial. Most of the studies being observational in nature led to a significant bias in their methodology which is a limitation to this review. The studies all measured first pass success rate as the primary outcome. First pass success rate only improved with videolaryngoscopy compared to direct laryngoscopy when the intubator was a less experienced clinician. Videolaryngoscopy also reduced some endotracheal intubation related complications and improved glottic visualisation when compared to direct laryngoscopy. Conclusion: The limited data suggests that use of videolaryngoscopy improved first pass success rates compared to direct laryngoscopy when the clinician was less experienced.