Videolaryngoscopy as a first-intention technique for tracheal intubation in unselected surgical patients: a before and after observational study.

BACKGROUND: Using a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope as a first-intention device for tracheal intubation of unselected patients in the operating room has not often been studied. We hypothesised that using a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope as a first-intention device is associated with an increased proportion of easy tracheal intubation. METHODS: In a quality improvement project for airway management aimed at implementing a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope as a first-intention device, we included all consecutive tracheal intubations in adults from March, 2017 to September, 2020 in two French teaching hospitals. We divided the cohort into three temporal cohorts: the pre-intervention, implementation, and post-intervention periods. The primary outcome was the proportion of easy airway management. The secondary outcomes were the rescue technique, Cormack-Lehane III or IV view, and operator-reported difficulty of intubation. Data from one hospital compliant with the quality improvement project were compared with data from a non-compliant hospital. RESULTS: A total of 26 692 tracheal intubations were performed. Among 11 938 intubations included in the compliant hospital, 5487 were included in the pre-intervention, 1845 in the implementation, and 4606 in the post-intervention periods. In comparison to the pre-intervention period, the proportions of easy tracheal intubation increased from 94.3% (5177 of 5487) to 98.7% (4547 of 4606)) in the post-intervention period (+4.4% [95% confidence interval 3.7-5.1%], P<0.001). In comparison to the pre-intervention period, all secondary outcome proportions were significantly lower in the post-intervention period. No significant changes were noted in the non-compliant hospital between the pre- and post-intervention periods. CONCLUSIONS: Using a Macintosh-style videolaryngoscope as a first-intention device for tracheal intubation in the operating room was associated with a significant increase in the proportion of easy tracheal intubation, compared with use of the standard Macintosh laryngoscope.

Practices in sedation, analgesia, mobilization, delirium, and sleep deprivation in adult intensive care units (SAMDS-ICU): an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. METHODS: This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

Airway management in the critically ill patient with COVID-19.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Critically ill Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients needing endotracheal intubation are on the verge of rapid decompensation. The aims of this review were to assess the risks, the preoxygenation, the device and the hemodynamic management of a patient with COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: The proceduralist performing endotracheal intubation with the entire team are at an increased risk for exposure to COVID-19. Appropriate personal protective equipment and other measures remain essential. For preoxygenation, noninvasive ventilation allows higher oxygen saturation during intubation in severely hypoxemic patients and can be associated with apneic oxygenation and mask ventilation during apnea in selected cases. The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted the place of videolaryngoscopy during intubation in intensive care unit (ICU). Hemodynamic optimization is mandatory to limit hypotension and cardiac arrest associated with airway management. SUMMARY: Future trials will better define the role of videolaryngoscopy, apneic oxygenation and mask ventilation during apnea for intubation of COVID-19 patients in ICU. The use of fluid loading and vasopressors remains to be investigated in large randomized controlled studies. Choosing the right time for intubation remains uncertain in clinical practice, and future works will probably help to identify earlier the patients who will need intubation.

Effect of the use of an endotracheal tube and stylet versus an endotracheal tube alone on first-attempt intubation success: a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 999 patients.

PURPOSE: The effect of the routine use of a stylet during tracheal intubation on first-attempt intubation success is unclear. We hypothesised that the first-attempt intubation success rate would be higher with tracheal tube + stylet than with tracheal tube alone. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled trial, conducted in 32 intensive care units, we randomly assigned patients to tracheal tube + stylet or tracheal tube alone (i.e. without stylet). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with first-attempt intubation success. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with complications related to tracheal intubation. Serious adverse events, i.e., traumatic injuries related to tracheal intubation, were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 999 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 501 (50%) to tracheal tube + stylet and 498 (50%) to tracheal tube alone. First-attempt intubation success occurred in 392 patients (78.2%) in the tracheal tube + stylet group and in 356 (71.5%) in the tracheal tube alone group (absolute risk difference, 6.7; 95%CI 1.4-12.1; relative risk, 1.10; 95%CI 1.02-1.18; P = 0.01). A total of 194 patients (38.7%) in the tracheal tube + stylet group had complications related to tracheal intubation, as compared with 200 patients (40.2%) in the tracheal tube alone group (absolute risk difference, - 1.5; 95%CI - 7.5 to 4.6; relative risk, 0.96; 95%CI 0.83-1.12; P = 0.64). The incidence of serious adverse events was 4.0% and 3.6%, respectively (absolute risk difference, 0.4; 95%CI, - 2.0 to 2.8; relative risk, 1.10; 95%CI 0.59-2.06. P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, using a stylet improves first-attempt intubation success.

Guidelines: Anaesthesia in the context of COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The world is currently facing an unprecedented healthcare crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The objective of these guidelines is to produce a framework to facilitate the partial and gradual resumption of intervention activity in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: The group has endeavoured to produce a minimum number of recommendations to highlight the strengths to be retained in the 7 predefined areas: (1) protection of staff and patients; (2) benefit/risk and patient information; (3) preoperative assessment and decision on intervention; (4) modalities of the preanaesthesia consultation; (5) specificity of anaesthesia and analgesia; (6) dedicated circuits and (7) containment exit type of interventions. RESULTS: The SFAR Guideline panel provides 51 statements on anaesthesia management in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. After one round of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of the recommendations and algorithms. CONCLUSION: We present suggestions for how the risk of transmission by and to anaesthetists can be minimised and how personal protective equipment policies relate to COVID-19 pandemic context.