ABSTRACT
Introduction: In the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, endotracheal intubation using an aerosol box (AB) became the norm in the emergency department (ED) and the intensive care unit. We compared two models of AB with different dimensions to compare and identify a device that helps in reducing viral exposure without compromising successful airway management. Methods: We conducted this prospective observational study for 7 months (October 20-April 21) on 143 patients presenting with an acute airway compromise to the ED. All intubations were performed using one of the two models available. The primary outcome was time taken for intubation (TTI). Results: The overall median time taken to intubate using any AB was 63 (interquartile range [IQR]: 46.2-87.7) s with an 81.9% first-pass success (FPS) rate. TTI for AB I was 67 (IQR: 53-106) s with a 76.3% FPS rate, while TTI for AB II was 57 (IQR: 44-75) s with an 85.9% FPS rate. TTI was much shorter without the use of an AB (34: IQR: 24-53 s) with a 92% FPS rate. Intubations done by emergency physicians with more than 2 years of experience were faster in both with or without AB when compared to intubations done by physicians with <2 years of experience. Conclusion: The use of an AB is associated with a longer TTI when compared to intubations done without an AB. TTI was relatively shorter when more experienced emergency physicians performed intubation. FPS rates were low with intubations done using AB.