Effect of two barrier devices on the time taken and ease of intubation of a paediatric intubation manikin - A randomised cross-over simulation study.

Background and Aims: During the present COVID-19 pandemic, several inventions have been employed to protect personnel involved in intubation from inhalational exposure to the virus. In this study, we compared the effect of two barrier devices, Intubation Box versus Plastic Drape, on the time taken and difficulty in intubating a pediatric manikin. Material and Methods: Nineteen experienced anesthesiologists performed six different intubations: without barrier, with intubation box, with plastic drape; with and without a bougie, using the Latin Square Design for randomizing order of intubations. The time taken for intubation (TTI) was compared using Student's t test, and nonparametric values were analyzed using Chi-square test with Yates correction. Results: Both barrier devices increased the TTI from 14.8 (3.5) s to 19.8 (6.8) s with intubation box (P = 0.068) and 19.3 (8.9) s with plastic drape (P = 0.099). Use of bougie significantly prolonged TTI to 25.8 (6.7) s without barrier (P = 0.000), 32.5 (13.3) with intubation box (P = 0.000), and 29.8 (7.3) s with plastic drape (P = 0.000). The number of attempts was not different (P = 0.411), and the visibility was slightly impaired with both barriers (P = 0.047). The ease of intubation, even without the bougie, was significantly different compared to default, with P values of 0.009 and 0.042 for intubation box and plastic drape, respectively. The highest significance was with intubation box with bougie with a P value of 0.00017. Conclusion: Both the intubation box and plastic drape increased the time taken as well as difficulty in intubation. The extra protection afforded should be balanced against risks of hypoxia in the patient.

VACuum INtubation (VACcIN) box restricts the exhaled air dispersion generated by simulated cough: description and simulation-based tests of an innovative aerosolization protective prototype.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused personal protective equipment shortages worldwide and required healthcare workers to develop novel ways of protecting themselves. Anesthesiologists in particular are exposed to increased risks of contamination when performing interventions such as airway manipulations. We developed and tested an aerosolization protective device which contains aerosols around the patient's airway and helps eliminate particles using negative pressure. This intubation box is a polymethyl methacrylate prism with openings for gloves, integrated suction and ventilation connectors. We conducted a randomised controlled series of tests to detect 0.5 µm particles after a simulated cough inside the intubation box, using a high-fidelity simulation mannequin. Setting and main outcome: We measured particle concentrations inside the box with and without suction turned on, in both negative and positive pressure operating rooms. We also obtained particle concentrations outside our box and compared them to non-airtight barrier devices. One minute following simulated cough, the mean number of particles per cubic foot in our box with suction on is around 45% that with the suction off (1,462,373 vs 3,272,080, P < 0.0001) in the negative pressure room, and four times lower than with the suction off (760,380 vs 3,088,700, P < 0.0001) in the positive pressure room. After a simulated cough inside the box, particles can be detected in front of the anesthesiologist's face with a non-airtight device, while none are detected when our box is sealed and its suction turned on. The use of our negative pressure intubation box prevents contamination of surroundings and increases particle elimination, regardless of room pressure.

Evaluating the Use of an Aerosol Box During Simulated Intubations.

To evaluate the use of an aerosol box during video laryngoscopy intubation, we conducted a two-phase simulation-based study to assess if there were significant differences in time needed to safely intubate a patient with an aerosol box in place, as well as assess changes in laryngoscopists' hand motions as determined by changes in accelerometry. 20 anesthesiology providers from our institution participated in the first phase assessing the time to intubation. Use of the aerosol box led to statistically significant increases in intubation times (Wilcoxon-Signed Rank test p < 0.001, z-score = 3.921), with the calculated Pearson's correlation coefficient (r = 0.877) indicating a large effect size. An 8.5 - 11.5 second difference in median intubation times was maintained between corresponding attempts with versus without the aerosol box. 15 participants completed an optional post-assessment survey, with 10 of 15 respondents firmly stating they would not use the box in clinical practice. The hand accelerometry assessment included five anesthesiology providers from our institution. This revealed a statistically significant increase in trials with aerosol boxes for the left hand's general accelerometry with a medium effect size (p = 0.031; z = -1.873; r = -0.484), as well as for the right hand's general accelerometry with a large effect size (p < 0.001; z = -3.351; r = -0.865). Although the aerosol box is an interesting concept, its use is associated with increased time to intubation and a change in ergonomics, which may increase risk during airway management and represents a concern for patient safety.

Will Protective Innovations Like the "Airway Box" Become Routine Practice After the Pandemic?: An Opinion Survey.

Background Tracheal intubation carries an elevated risk of exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) due to the generation of aerosols containing high concentrations of the virus. An airway box was designed to mitigate the exposure of healthcare professionals performing intubations. Aim We evaluated usability and sustainability in the routine practice of the "airway box" as a protective device during high-risk airway procedures.  Materials and methods After institutional review board approval, clinicians were educated on using the device through simulation, intranet learning modules, and emailed resources. The airway box was made available in the emergency department, critical care units, perioperative area, and operating rooms. QR codes affixed to the box, emailed, and displayed in common areas provided easy access to complete a REDcap survey (Vanderbilt University Nashville, USA) eliciting providers' experience. Data was collected and analyzed between April 1 and July 31, 2020, on REDcap, and the results were analyzed. Results 687 emergent intubations took place. 232 were performed by anesthesiologists, 315 by emergency department providers, and 140 by critical care specialists. 39 surveys were completed, 29 from intubations in the operating room, three from the critical care units, five from interventional radiology suites, and two perioperatively. Providers found the device to be readily available, with a score of 4.51/5, and the majority of providers, 60%, found the device easy to use, rating it either a 4 or 5 out of 5. Providers acquired a mean Mallampati score of 1.75 and 1.40 mean laryngoscopic grade view. Conclusion Intubation boxes may effectively mitigate high-risk viral exposure during airway procedures. Survey responses show that devices were easy to use and did not significantly affect visualization of the airway. Similar to mask use, enclosure devices in clinical practice could become a vital part of medical protective equipment even after the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic if they are effectively implemented.

Safety tent for enhanced personal protection from aerosol-generating procedures while handling the COVID-19 patient airway.

The world is going through the COVID-19 pandemic, which has high virulence and transmission rate. More significant the viral load during exposure, the greater is the likelihood of contracting a severe disease. Healthcare workers (HCWs) involved in airway care of COVID-19 patients are at high risk of getting exposed to large viral loads during aerosol-generating actions such as coughing or sneezing by the patient or during procedures such as bag-mask ventilation, intubation, extubation, and nebulization. This viral load exposure to airway caregivers decreases considerably with the use of an aerosol box during intubation. The safety tent proposed in this article is useful in limiting the viral load that HCWs are exposed to during airway procedures. Its role can be expanded beyond just intubation to protect against all aerosol-generating actions and procedures involving the patient's airway.

Aerosol boxes and barrier enclosures for airway management in COVID-19 patients: a scoping review and narrative synthesis.

Exposure of healthcare providers to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a significant safety concern during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, requiring contact/droplet/airborne precautions. Because of global shortages, limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) has motivated the development of barrier-enclosure systems, such as aerosol boxes, plastic drapes, and similar protective systems. We examined the available evidence and scientific publications about barrier-enclosure systems for airway management in suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients. MEDLINE/Embase/Google Scholar databases (from December 1, 2019 to May 27, 2020) were searched for all articles on barrier enclosures for airway management in COVID-19, including references and websites. All sources were reviewed by a panel of experts using a Delphi method with a modified nominal group technique. Fifty-two articles were reviewed for their results and level of evidence regarding barrier device feasibility, advantages, protection against droplets and aerosols, effectiveness, safety, ergonomics, and cleaning/disposal. The majority of analysed papers were expert opinions, small case series, technical descriptions, small-sample simulation studies, and pre-print proofs. The use of barrier-enclosure devices adds to the complexity of airway procedures with potential adverse consequences, especially during airway emergencies. Concerns include limitations on the ability to perform airway interventions and the aid that can be delivered by an assistant, patient injuries, compromise of PPE integrity, lack of evidence for added protection of healthcare providers (including secondary aerosolisation upon barrier removal), and lack of cleaning standards. Enclosure barriers for airway management are no substitute for adequate PPE, and their use should be avoided until adequate validation studies can be reported.