Tracheal Intubation during Advanced Life Support Using Direct Laryngoscopy versus Glidescope

The use of the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope might improve tracheal intubation performance in clinicians with limited intubation experience, especially during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare direct laryngoscopy to Glidescope® videolaryngoscopy by these clinicians. PubMed/Medline and Embase were searched from their inception to 7 July 2020 for randomized controlled trials, including simulation studies. Studies on adult patients or adult-sized manikins were included when direct laryngoscopy was compared to Glidescope® videolaryngoscopy by clinicians with limited experience in tracheal intubation (<10 intubations per year). The primary outcome was the intubation first-pass success rate. Secondary outcomes were time to successful intubation and chest compression interruption duration during intubation. The risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). We included 4 clinical trials with 525 patients and 20 manikin trials with 2547 intubations. Meta-analyses favored Glidescope® videolaryngoscopy over direct laryngoscopy regarding first-pass success (clinical trials: risk ratio [RR] = 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.16−2.23; manikin trials: RR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.09−1.25). Clinical trials showed a shorter time to achieve successful intubation when using the Glidescope® (mean difference = 17.04 s; 95% CI: 8.51−25.57 s). Chest compression interruption duration was decreased when using the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate. When clinicians with limited intubation experience have to perform tracheal intubation during advanced life support, the use of the Glidescope® videolaryngoscope improves intubation and CPR performance compared to direct laryngoscopy.