Pro-Con Debate: Videolaryngoscopy Should Be Standard of Care for Tracheal Intubation

Abstract

In this Pro-Con commentary article, we discuss whether videolaryngoscopy (VL) should be the standard of care for tracheal intubation. Dr Aziz makes the case that VL should be the standard of care, while Dr Berkow follows with a challenge of that assertion. In this debate, we explore not only the various benefits of VL, but also its limitations. There is compelling evidence that VL improves first-pass success rates, reduces the risk of intubation failure and esophageal intubation, and has benefits in the difficult airway patient. But VL is not without complications and does not possess a 100% success rate. In the case of failure, it is important to have back-up plans for airway management. While transition of care from direct laryngoscopy (DL) to VL may result in improved airway management outcomes, the reliance on VL may degrade other important clinical skills when they are needed most. If VL is adapted as the standard of care, airway managers may no longer practice and retain competency in other airway techniques that may be required in the event of VL failure. While cost is a barrier to broad implementation of VL, those costs are normalizing. However, it may still be challenging for institutions to secure purchase of VL for every intubating location, as well as back-up airway devices. As airway management care increasingly transitions from DL to VL, providers should be aware of the benefits and risks to this practice change.