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.

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.

A Prospective Audit of Airway Code Activations and Adverse Events in Two Tertiary Hospitals

INTRODUCTION@#Airway management outside the operating room can be challenging, with an increased risk of difficult intubation, failed intubation and complications. We aim to examine airway practices, incidence of difficult airway and complications associated with airway code (AC) activation.@*METHODS@#We conducted a prospective audit of AC activations and adverse events in two tertiary hospitals in Singapore. We included all adult patients outside the operating room who underwent emergency intubation by the AC team after AC activation. Adult patients who underwent emergency intubation without AC activation or before the arrival of the AC team were excluded. Data were collected and documented by the attending anaesthetists in a standardised survey form shortly after their responsibilities were completed.@*RESULTS@#The audit was conducted over a 20-month period from July 2016 to March 2018, during which a total of 224 airway activations occurred. Intubation was successful in 218 of 224 AC activations, giving a success rate of 97.3%. Overall, 48 patients (21.4%) suffered an adverse event. Thirteen patients (5.8%) had complications when intubation was carried out by the AC team compared with 35 (21.5%) by the non-AC team.@*CONCLUSION@#Dedicated AC team offers better success rate for emergency tracheal intubation. Non-AC team attempted intubation in the majority of the cases before the arrival of the AC team. Increased intubation attempts are associated with increased incidence of adverse events. Equipment and patient factors also contributed to the adverse events. A multidisciplinary programme including the use of supraglottic devices may be helpful to improve the rate of success and minimise complications.

Is esophagectomy necessary for esophageal cancer patients with complete response after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy / 中华胃肠外科杂志

Esophageal cancer is one of the common cancers in China. More and more researches indicated that comprehensive treatment should be recommended for locally advanced esophageal cancer with resectable potential, especially the application of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) was used to improve survival. However, the response to neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy is various due to individual heterogeneity. Previous studies showed that pathological complete response (pCR) was considered as an important predictor of improved prognosis in esophageal cancer patients undergoing neoadjuvant CRT. Esophageal cancer patients with pCR had better prognosis than those without pCR. The watch and wait strategy may be a feasible option for surgically eligible rectal cancer patients with clinical complete response (cCR) after neoadjuvant chemoraidotherapy. Can the watch and wait strategy be used for reference to esophageal cancer? Whether patients with cCR following neoadjuvant CRT should undergo operation is analyzed in this article. According to present efficacy evaluation, cCR is inadequate to predict pCR. In addition, esophagectomy is favored for its curative effect and controllable complications. Therefore, we believe surgical resection, the chief component of multimodality treatment, should be recommended for all patients with locally advanced esophageal cancer.

The current status and perspectives of esophagectomy / 中国肿瘤临床

Surgery is the main treatment of esophageal cancer. Esophagectomy by right transthoracic approach is recently recom-mended in China. Minimally invasive esophagectomy is feasible and safe with low perioperative morbidity and offers results that are as good as open thoractomy. Multimodal treatment, especially neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy or chemotherapy, may improve surviv-al and has become one of the standard treatments for locally advanced esophageal cancer. Fast-track esophagectomy may reduce length of hospital stay, perioperative morbidity, and hospital charges. The surgery of esophageal cancer tends to be minimally invasive, individual, comprehensive, and standardized.

Short-term outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy for esophageal cancer / 中华胃肠外科杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To evaluate the feasibility, safety and short-term clinical outcomes of robot-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE).</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Clinical data of 17 patients with esophageal cancer who received RAMIE between April 2016 and July 2016 were analyzed retrospectively.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The age of the patients ranged from 44 to 83. Six patients received neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy while 11 patients underwent surgery alone. All patients were performed by the robot-assisted thoraco-laparoscopic minimally invasive esophagectomy. In-hospital mortality was 0%. None was converted to open transthoracic or laparotomy approach. In the neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy group, 3 patients received pathological complete response while 2 patients were stage II(A and 1 patient was stage II(B. In the surgery alone group, 1 patient was stage I(A, 3 patients were stage II(A, 5 patients were stage II(B, 1 patient was stage III(A and 1 patient was stage III(B. The mean operation time was 195 minutes (range 145 to 305 minutes). The mean blood loss was 60 ml (range 30 to 200 ml). Mean lymph node harvest was 28 nodes. The rate of radical resection was 100%. Median ICU stay was 4.5 days (range 1 to 36 days), and median overall postoperative hospital stay was 15.2 days(range 9 to 45 days). Postoperative complication occurred in 4 (23.5%) patients, including 3 (17.6%) of lung lesion, 2 (11.8%) of hoarseness, 1 (5.9%) of chylothorax, while no anastomotic leakage and arrhythmia was observed.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>RAMIE for esophageal cancer is feasible and safe with favorable early outcomes.</p>