Efficacy of McGRATH®MAC videolaryngoscope blade 1 for tracheal intubation in small children: a randomized controlled clinical study.

BACKGROUND: Videolaryngoscopes may not be as effective in small children as they are in older children and in adults. The size 1 blade is commercially available for the McGRATH®MAC videolaryngoscope (Covidien, Medtronic, Tokyo, Japan), but its efficacy in comparison with a Macintosh laryngoscope blade 1 is not known. AIM: The main aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of McGrath®MAC blade 1 in comparison with a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope blade 1, in children aged less than 24 months. METHODS: Thirty-eight children aged less than 24 months were randomly allocated to one of two groups, and tracheal intubation was attempted using either a direct laryngoscope with a Macintosh blade 1 or a videolaryngoscope with a McGRATH®MAC blade 1. In another 12 children aged 2-4 years, the same comparisons were made with blade 2. The primary outcome measure was time to tracheal intubation using a size 1 blade. RESULTS: Tracheal intubation took significantly longer with a McGRATH®MAC blade 1 (median (interquartile range): 38.0 (31.8-43.5) s) than with the Macintosh blade 1(27.4 (25.9-29.2) s) (p < 0.0001; median difference (95% CI for the median difference): 10.6 (6.4-14.0) s), mainly due to difficulty in advancing a tube into the trachea. No significant difference was observed for the size 2. CONCLUSIONS: In small children without predicted difficult airways, time to intubate the trachea was significantly longer for a McGRATH®MAC blade 1 than a Macintosh blade 1. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: jRCT1032220366.

Efficacy of an aerosol suction device Free-100 M in removing aerosols produced by coughing to minimize COVID-19 infection.

PURPOSE: The healthcare workers are at the greatest risk of being exposed to viral infection during airway management of a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). An air extractor which suctions air around the patient's face would reduce the spread of viral aerosols during coughing, but no study has confirmed this. We assessed whether or not an air extractor reduces the amount of aerosols spreading toward the operator's face, during coughing of simulated patients. METHODS: After obtained approval of the study by a research ethics committee and written informed consent from 20 volunteers (and additional 20 volunteers), we asked each volunteer to lie supine on a table in a positive-pressure management operating room. As a cross-over design, we used an airborne particle counter (Handheld 3016, SGY company, Tokyo) to measure the aerosols approximately 30 cm above the participant's mouth, while the volunteer was coughing, with and without the use of an air extractor Free-100 M (Forest-one, Funabashi), facing the participant's mouth. In another 20 volunteers, the aerosols were measured, while each volunteer was lying supine, without coughing, and without the use of the air extractor. RESULTS: The aerosol count during coughing was significantly lower when the air extractor was used [median: 55 (interquartile range: 15-128)] than when it was not used [73 (44-201)] [p = 0.001, difference: 19 (95%CI: 4-70)]. CONCLUSIONS: The Free-100 M air extractor would reduce, but do not remove all, aerosols produced by coughing of a patient, and thus may reduce the risk of infection of COVID-19.

Aerosol containment device for airway management of patients with COVID-19: a narrative review.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), which causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is highly contagious. To protect healthcare workers from infection during airway management, some expert recommendations and guidelines recommended wearing P2/N95 masks, goggles or glasses, glove, face-shields, and gowns as standard personal protective equipment (PPE). Nevertheless, several simulation studies have suggested that the standard PPE may not fully protect healthcare workers. Dr. Hsien Yung Lai introduced an acrylic box ("aerosol box") as a part of PPE during airway management. Since then, several companies and healthcare workers have made their own modified devices ("aerosol containment device"), and the use of such a device has spread worldwide, without being formally assessed for its effectiveness, efficacy and safety. Several simulation studies have indicated that "aerosol containment device" would make tracheal intubation more difficult. In addition, the device would prevent the spread of droplets from a patient, but may increase the risk of healthcare workers being exposed to a higher concentration of viral aerosols. Therefore, the current state of knowledge indicates that an "aerosol containment device" without vacuum mechanism has only limited efficacy in protecting healthcare workers from viral transmission.