Published in:
Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research
Endotracheal tube-mounted camera-assisted intubation versus conventional intubation in intensive care: a prospective, randomised trial (VivaITN)
Published in: Critical Care | Issue 1/2018
Login to get accessAbstract
Background
For 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).
Methods
With 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.
Results
The 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.).
Conclusion
In 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 registration
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02837055. Registered on 13 June 2016.