ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025
Video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy in a UK pre-hospital physician/critical care paramedic helicopter emergency medical service.
Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is recognised that multiple attempts at intubation are associated with harm. However, it remains unclear whether video laryngoscopy (VL) significantly improves pre-hospital tracheal intubation success compared to direct laryngoscopy (DL) in critically ill patients. While operating theatre studies strongly favour VL, some pre-hospital studies suggest it may worsen outcomes.
methodsThis single-centre retrospective service evaluation included critically ill patients requiring pre-hospital tracheal intubation by a UK-based Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) Hampshire & Isle of Wight Air Ambulance between 1st November 2018 and 22nd April 2024. This time period saw the introduction of VL with the option to use it versus DL. Patient demographics, intubation indication, anaesthetic drugs, and intubation technique (type of laryngoscopy, grade of view, number of attempts, and complications) were collated. The primary outcome was first-pass success, comparing VL and DL groups, with significance set at p = < 0.05.
resultsWe included 1,279 patients (median age 56, 69% male), of whom 478 (37%) received VL and 803 (63%) received DL. The most common indication for intubation was low GCS (n = 477 (39%). Overall, First-pass success was 92% (n = 443) in the VL group and 84% (n = 799) in the DL group. Since the introduction of VL in June 2022, both the proportion of VL intubations and first-pass success rates have increased annually.
conclusionOur findings support the routine use of VL for pre-hospital tracheal intubation.
trial registrationThis project used routinely collected data and was registered with University Hospital Southampton as a service evaluation SEV/0735, date of registration 16/07/2024.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.