↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of patients with difficult airway characteristics in the emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in Internal and Emergency Medicine, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
1 X user
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
96 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for intubation of patients with difficult airway characteristics in the emergency department
Published in
Internal and Emergency Medicine, September 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11739-013-0995-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

John Constantine Sakles, Asad E. Patanwala, Jarrod M. Mosier, John Michael Dicken

Abstract

The objective of the study is to compare the efficacy of video laryngoscopy (VL) to direct laryngoscopy (DL) on the first pass intubation success of patients with difficult airway characteristics (DACs) in the emergency department (ED). Over a 6-year period, between July 1 2007 and June 30 2013, all intubations performed in an academic ED were recorded in a continuous quality improvement (CQI) database by the operators. The CQI form included information such as patient demographics, operator level of training, device(s) used, number of attempts and outcome of each attempt. In addition, operators performed a difficult airway assessment and noted the presence or absence of the following difficult airway characteristics (DACs): airway edema, cervical immobility, facial/neck trauma, large tongue, obesity, short neck, small mandible, and blood or vomit in the airway. Patients <18 years of age and those not intubated by an emergency physician (EP) were excluded from the analysis. Multivariate regression models were developed to determine the effect of device type (VL or DL) on first pass intubation success as the number of DACs increased. A total of 2,423 intubations were included in this study. First pass success by the number of DACs was as follows in the VL and DL groups, respectively: no DACs [90.8 % (95 % CI 87.5-93.4) vs. 82.0 % (95 % CI 78.0-85.5)]; one DAC [85.1 % (95 % CI 81.2-88.5 %) vs. 69.4 % (95 % CI 63.9-74.5 %)]; two DACs [(80.5 % (95 % CI 74.7-85.6 %) vs. 65.8 % (95 % CI 57.6-73.3 %)]; three or more DACs [68.9 % (95 % CI 63.8-73.7 %) vs. 54.1 % (95 % CI 46.3-61.8 %)]. After adjusting for potential confounders, VL was associated with higher odds of first pass success for patients with no DACs (aOR 2.0, 95 % CI 1.2-3.3), one DAC (aOR 3.2, 95 % CI 1.9-5.6), two DACs (aOR 2.3, 95 % CI 1.1-4.9), and three or more DACs (aOR 2.9, 95 % CI 1.5-5.5). In patients with DACs, VL was associated with a higher first pass success than DL. VL is recommended as the primary intubating device for patients with predicted difficult airways in the ED.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Austria 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
Unknown 75 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Postgraduate 9 12%
Other 7 9%
Professor 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 5 6%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 20 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 45 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 1%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 1%
Other 3 4%
Unknown 24 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 March 2016.
All research outputs
#2,091,217
of 22,953,506 outputs
Outputs from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#90
of 952 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#19,213
of 197,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Internal and Emergency Medicine
#1
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,953,506 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 952 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 197,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them