Time to intubation with McGrath ™ videolaryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope in powered air-purifying respirator: a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION@#During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, multiple guidelines have recommended videolaryngoscope (VL) for tracheal intubation. However, there is no evidence that VL reduces time to tracheal intubation, and this is important for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure.@*METHODS@#To simulate intubation of COVID-19 patients, we randomly assigned 28 elective surgical patients to be intubated with either McGrath™ MAC VL or direct laryngoscope (DL) by specialist anaesthetists who donned 3M™ Jupiter™ powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) and N95 masks. The primary outcome was time to intubation.@*RESULTS@#The median time to intubation was 61 s (interquartile range [IQR] 37-63 s) and 41.5 s (IQR 37-56 s) in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.35). The closest mean distance between the anaesthetist and patient during intubation was 21.6 ± 4.8 cm and 17.6 ± 5.3 cm in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.045). There were no significant differences in the median intubation difficulty scale scores, proportion of successful intubations at the first laryngoscopic attempt and proportion of intubations requiring adjuncts. All the patients underwent successful intubation with no adverse event.@*CONCLUSION@#There was no significant difference in the time to intubation of elective surgical patients with either McGrath™ VL or DL by specialist anaesthetists who donned PAPR and N95 masks. The distance between the anaesthetist and patient was significantly greater with VL. When resources are limited or disrupted during a pandemic, DL could be a viable alternative to VL for specialist anaesthetists.

Point of care ultrasound: a clinical decision support tool for COVID-19

The COVID-19 global pandemic has overwhelmed health services with large numbers of patients presenting to hospital, requiring immediate triage and diagnosis. Complications include acute respiratory distress syndrome, myocarditis, septic shock, and multiple organ failure. Point of care ultrasound is recommended for critical care triage and monitoring in COVID-19 by specialist critical care societies, however current guidance has mainly been published in webinar format, not a comprehensive review. Important limitations of point of care ultrasound include inter-rater variability and subjectivity in interpretation of imaging findings, as well as infection control concerns. A practical approach to clinical integration of point of care ultrasound findings in COVID-19 patients is presented to enhance consistency in critical care decision making, and relevant infection control guidelines and operator precautions are discussed, based on a narrative review of the literature.

Practical Considerations for Converting Operating Rooms and Post-anaesthesia Care Units into Intensive Care Units in the COVID-19 Pandemic - Experience from a Large Singapore Tertiary Hospital

COVID-19 has spread globally, infecting and killing millions of people worldwide. The use of operating rooms (ORs) and the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) for intensive care is part of surge response planning. We aim to describe and discuss some of the practical considerations involved in a large tertiary hospital in Singapore. Firstly, considerations for setting up a level III intensive care unit (ICU) include that of space, staff, supplies and standards. Secondly, oxygen supply of the entire hospital is a major determinant of the number of ventilators it can support, including those on non-invasive forms of oxygen therapy. Thirdly, air flows due to positive pressure systems within the OR complex need to be addressed. In addition, due to the worldwide shortage of ICU ventilators, the US Food and Drug Administration has granted temporary approval for the use of anaesthesia gas machines for patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Lastly, planning of logistics and staff deployment needs to be carefully considered during a crisis. Although OR and PACU are not designed for long-term care of critically ill patients, they may be adapted for ICU use with careful planning in the current pandemic.

Retrospective review of critical incidents in the post-anaesthesia care unit at a major tertiary hospital

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>We reviewed patients with critical incidents that occurred in the post-anaesthesia care unit (PACU) at a major tertiary hospital, and assessed the effect of these incidents on PACU length of stay and discharge disposition.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A retrospective review was conducted of patients in the PACU over a two-year period from 24 June 2011 to 23 August 2013. Data on critical incidents was recorded in the administrative database using a standardised data form.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>There were 701 incidents involving 364 patients; 203 (55.8%) patients had American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II. The most common critical incidents were cardiovascular-related (n = 293, 41.8%), respiratory (n = 155, 22.1%), neurological (n = 52, 7.4%), surgical (n = 47, 6.7%) and airway-related (n = 34, 4.9%). There were two incidents of cardiac arrest and 25 incidents of unexpected reintubations. Many patients (n = 186, 51.2%) stayed for over four hours in the PACU due to critical incidents and 184 (50.5%) patients required a higher level of care postoperatively than initially planned. Some patients (n = 34, 9.3%) returned to the operation theatre for further management. A proportion of patients (n = 64, 17.6%) had unplanned intensive care unit admissions due to adverse events in the PACU.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>A wide spectrum of critical incidents occur in the PACU, many of which are related to the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Critical incidents have a major impact on healthcare utilisation and result in prolonged PACU stays and higher levels of postoperative care than initially anticipated.</p>

A review of perioperative anaphylaxis at a Singapore tertiary hospital

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Perioperative anaphylaxis is an anaesthetic emergency, but its incidence is not well described in the local literature. This retrospective study aims to look at a group of patients who had perioperative anaphylaxis in our institution.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We conducted a retrospective review of electronic databases and clinical case sheets, and identified 34 patients who had possible perioperative anaphylaxis during anaesthesia in our institution between 1 January 2007 and 30 April 2012.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>After reviewing clinical and biochemical data, we found that 16 out of 151,876 patients who underwent surgery had confirmed perioperative anaphylaxis, an incidence of 1:10,000. Neuromuscular blockers were identified as the most common causative agent for perioperative anaphylaxis. The offending agent could not be identified in seven patients.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study in Southeast Asia on the incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis. Having a preoperative history of allergy did not seem to predispose patients to the subsequent development of perioperative anaphylaxis.</p>