Airway management during cardiac arrest.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Despite improvements over time, cardiac arrest continues to be associated with high rates of mortality and morbidity. Several methods can be used to achieve airway patency during cardiac arrest, and the optimal strategy continues to be debated. This review will explore and summarize the latest published evidence for airway management during cardiac arrest. RECENT FINDINGS: A large meta-analysis of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients found no difference in survival between those receiving tracheal intubation and those treated with a supraglottic airway (SGA). Observational studies of registry data have reported higher survival to hospital discharge in patients receiving tracheal intubation or an SGA but another showed no difference. Rates of intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest have decreased in the United States, and different airway strategies appear to be used in different centres. SUMMARY: Observational studies continue to dominate the evidence base relating to cardiac arrest airway management. Cardiac arrest registries enable these observational studies to include many patients; however, the design of such studies introduces considerable bias. Further randomized clinical trials are underway. The current evidence does not indicate a substantial improvement in outcome from any single airway strategy.

Recommendations for airway management in a suspected or confirmed case with COVID-19. A protocol of the Department of Cardiovascular Anesthesia of the National Institute of Cardiology Ignacio Chávez / Recomendaciones para el manejo de la vía aérea en caso sospechoso y/o confirmado con COVID-19. Protocolo del Departamento de Anestesiología Cardiovascular del Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chávez

The new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2), detected in Wuhan, China, causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which was declared pandemic, and has caused more than 19 million confirmed cases and more than 700 thousand deaths worldwide. When our institution was converted to COVID's hospital since early April 2020, specific care protocols were developed, with the aim of improving the quality of care and safety of patients and the staff involved in their management. Airway management represents one of the highest risks of direct contact infection with aerosol generation (orotracheal intubation, secretion aspiration, extubation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, high flow oxygen therapy, noninvasive ventilation, and invasive ventilation). We present the current recommendations for airway management as well as a step-by-step airway management protocol to carry out a more secure procedure based on the literature reported so far.

El nuevo coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2), detectado en Wuhan (China), causante de la enfermedad por coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19), que se declaró como pandemia, ha causado más de 19 millones de casos confirmados y más de 700 mil muertes en el mundo. Nuestra institución se reconvirtió a hospital COVID desde principios de abril del 2020, con lo que se desarrollaron protocolos de atención específicos, con el objetivo de mejorar la calidad de atención y seguridad de los pacientes y el personal involucrado en su manejo. El manejo de la vía aérea representa uno de los riesgos más altos de contagio por contacto directo en la generación de aerosoles (intubación orotraqueal, aspiración de secreciones, extubación, resucitación cardiopulmonar, terapia de oxígeno de alto flujo, ventilación no invasiva y ventilación invasiva). Presentamos las recomendaciones actuales para el manejo de la vía aérea, así como un protocolo de manejo paso a paso para llevar a cabo un procedimiento con mayor seguridad basados en la literatura reportada hasta el momento.

Impact of COVID-19-adapted guidelines using different airway management strategies on resuscitation quality in out-of-hospital-cardiac-arrest - a randomised manikin study.

BACKGROUND: Although airway management for paramedics has moved away from endotracheal intubation towards extraglottic airway devices in recent years, in the context of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation has seen a revival. Endotracheal intubation has been recommended again under the assumption that it provides better protection against aerosol liberation and infection risk for care providers than extraglottic airway devices accepting an increase in no-flow time and possibly worsen patient outcomes. METHODS: In this manikin study paramedics performed advanced cardiac life support with non-shockable (Non-VF) and shockable rhythms (VF) in four settings: ERC guidelines 2021 (control), COVID-19-guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation (COVID-19-intubation), laryngeal mask (COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask) or a modified laryngeal mask modified with a shower cap (COVID-19-showercap) to reduce aerosol liberation simulated by a fog machine. Primary endpoint was no-flow-time, secondary endpoints included data on airway management as well as the participants' subjective assessment of aerosol release using a Likert-scale (0 = no release-10 = maximum release) were collected and statistically compared. Continuous Data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Interval-scaled Data were presented as median and Q1 and Q3. RESULTS: A total of 120 resuscitation scenarios were completed. Compared to control (Non-VF:11 ± 3 s, VF:12 ± 3 s) application of COVID-19-adapted guidelines lead to prolonged no-flow times in all groups (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:17 ± 11 s, VF:19 ± 5 s;p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: VF:15 ± 5 s,p ≤ 0.01; COVID-19-showercap: VF:15 ± 3 s,p ≤ 0.01). Compared to COVID-19-Intubation, the use of the laryngeal mask and its modification with a showercap both led to a reduction of no-flow-time(COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: Non-VF:p = 0.002;VF:p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-Showercap: Non-VF:p ≤ 0.001;VF:p = 0.002) due to a reduced duration of intubation (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:40 ± 19 s;VF:33 ± 17 s; both p ≤ 0.01 vs. control, COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask (Non-VF:15 ± 7 s;VF:13 ± 5 s;p > 0.05) and COVID-19-Shower-cap (Non-VF:15 ± 5 s;VF:17 ± 5 s;p > 0.05). The participants rated aerosol liberation lowest in COVID-19-intubation (median:0;Q1:0,Q3:2;p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask and COVID-19-showercap) compared to COVID-19-shower-cap (median:3;Q1:1,Q3:3 p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask) or COVID-19-laryngeal-mask (median:9;Q1:6,Q3:8). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-adapted guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation lead to a prolongation of no-flow time. The use of a modified laryngeal mask with a shower cap seems to be a suitable compromise combining minimal impact on no-flowtime and reduced aerosol exposure for the involved providers.

Head and neck cancer recurrence with limited mouth opening, radiation fibrosis and confirmed COVID-19 infection: Approach to airway management.

We present a case that describes the airway management of a patient with recurrent head and neck cancer and confirmed COVID-19 infection. Securing airway of these patients with anticipated difficulty and at the same time limiting virus exposure to providers can be challenging. The risk of aerosolization during awake tracheal intubation is extreme as it carries a high risk of transmitting respiratory infections. A multidisciplinary team discussion before the procedure highlighted aspects of both airway management and the urgency of surgical procedure where particular care and modifications are required. Successful flexible bronchoscopy and intubation was done under inhalational anaesthetics with spontaneous breathing. Although fiberoptic intubation during sleep,in anticipated difficult airways, have led to enhanced intubation time, this technique was opted to minimize the risk of aerosol generation associated with topicalisation, coughing and hence reduced incidence of cross infection to health care workers.

The impact of aerosol box on tracheal intubation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to summarize the effect of the aerosol box on tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19. AREAS COVERED: According to the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was performed to identify relevant literature on the 'impact of the aerosol box on tracheal intubation during the COVID-19 pandemic' in different electronic databases up to March 2021. Based on a set of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 447 articles were screened. Finally, 20 articles were included in the current systematic review. The findings showed that the use of aerosol box during intubation could reduce droplet contamination on the healthcare workers but not necessarily aerosols. An increase in the time of intubation with the aerosol box was also observed in 9 out of 12 studies (75%); however, three studies reported no significant difference in the time of intubation with and without the aerosol box. Most studies (8 out of 9, 89%) were also shown that intubation with the aerosol box may lead to more difficulty. EXPERT OPINION: The proceduralist and other healthcare workers involved in airway management of COVID-19 infected patients should decide whether to apply the aerosol box with caution, balancing between benefits and risks, especially in difficult airway circumstances.

Airway management, intensive care requirement, and corticosteroid use in cervicofacial infection. A Maxillofacial Trainee Research Collaborative (MTReC) study.

Cervicofacial infection (CFI) is a frequently encountered presentation to Oral and Maxillofacial Departments (OMFS). The United Kingdom has recently seen cessation of all routine community dental treatment due to the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and consequently an initial modification of treatment received in secondary care. Subsequent airway difficulties and the need for level 2 High Dependency Unit (HDU) or level 3 Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is a concern to surgeons and anaesthetists alike. The availability of skilled staff and appropriate facilities can be variable. It is imperative to understand the resource implications of CFI with respect to airway management and critical care utilisation. Adequate provision is fundamental for optimal care. A national, multicentre, trainee-led audit was carried out across 17 hospitals in the UK from May to September 2017. Information recorded included demographic features, presentation, airway management, medical and surgical treatment, and steroid administration. One thousand and two presentations (1002) were recorded. Forty-five percent were female, with a mean (range) age of 37.5 years (0-94). Regarding surgical airway management, 63.4% had a standard intubation (oral 42%, nasal 21.4%). Awake fibreoptic intubation (AFOI) was performed in 28% and surgical airway required in 0.9%. Impending airway compromise at the time of presentation was 1.7%. Following surgical incision and drainage, 96.1% of patients returned to a general ward, 2.7% to Level 3, and 1.1% to Level 2 care. The return to theatre was 2.8%, and 0.7% required reintubation. There was an association between corticosteroid administration and duration of intubation. Those who received steroids were more likely to remain intubated postoperatively (p = 0.006), require a higher level of postoperative care (p < 0.001), and require a return to theatre (p = 0.019). Postoperatively, patients who received steroids were less likely to be extubated at the close of the procedure. Intubated patients who received multiple steroid doses postoperatively were extubated with less frequency those that received a single dose. To our knowledge, this dataset is the largest ever recorded for CFI. Our results showed a high requirement for advanced airway management in this cohort. The requirement for surgical airway was low, but the significance of this situation should not be underestimated. The relatively frequent need for care at levels 2 or 3 within this cohort also placed a significant demand on already overburdened resources. Knowledge of care requirements for these patients will inform resource planning.

Airway management, procedural data, and in-hospital mortality records of patients undergoing surgery for mucormycosis associated with coronavirus disease (COVID-19).

PURPOSE: Although unexpected airway difficulties are reported in patients with mucormycosis, the literature on airway management in patients with mucormycosis associated with Coronavirus disease is sparse. METHODS: In this retrospective case record review of 57 patients who underwent surgery for mucormycosis associated with coronavirus disease, we aimed to evaluate the demographics, airway management, procedural data, and in-hospital mortality records. RESULTS: Forty-one (71.9%) patients had a diagnosis of sino-nasal mucormycosis, fourteen (24.6%) patients had a diagnosis of rhino-orbital mucormycosis, and 2 (3.5%) patients had a diagnosis of palatal mucormycosis. A total of 44 (77.2%) patients had co-morbidities. The most common co-morbidities were diabetes mellitus in 42 (73.6%) patients, followed by hypertension in 21 (36.8%) patients, and acute kidney injury in 14 (28.1%) patients. We used the intubation difficulty scale score to assess intubating conditions. Intubation was easy to slightly difficult in 53 (92.9%) patients. In our study, mortality occurred in 7 (12.3%) patients. The median (range) mortality time was 60 (27-74) days. The median (range) time to hospital discharge was 53.5 (10-85) days. The median [interquartile range] age of discharged versus expired patients was 47.5 [41,57.5] versus 64 [47,70] years (P = 0.04), and median (interquartile range) D-dimer levels in discharged versus expired patients was 364 [213, 638] versus 2448 [408,3301] ng/mL (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing surgery for mucormycosis associated with the coronavirus disease, airway management was easy to slightly difficult in most patients. Perioperative complications can be minimized by taking timely and precautionary measures.

Practice what you teach: An approach to integrate airway education for experienced anesthesia clinicians.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted clinician education. To address this challenge, our divisional difficult airway program (AirEquip) designed and implemented small-group educational workshops for experienced clinicians. Our primary aim was to test the feasibility and acceptability of a small-group, flexible-curriculum skills workshop conducted during the clinical workday. Secondary objectives were to evaluate whether our workshop increased confidence in performing relevant skills and to assess the work-effort required for the new program. METHODS: We implemented a 1:1 and 2:1 (participant to facilitator ratio) airway skills workshop for experienced clinicians during the workday. A member of the AirEquip team temporarily relieved the attendee of clinical duties to facilitate participation. Attendance was encouraged but not required. Feasibility was assessed by clinician attendance, and acceptability was assessed using three Likert scale questions and derived from free-response feedback. Participants completed pre and postworkshop surveys to assess familiarity and comfort with various aspects of airway management. A work-effort analysis was conducted and compared to the effort to run a previously held larger-format difficult airway conference. RESULTS: Fifteen workshops were conducted over 7 weeks; members of AirEquip were able to temporarily assume participants' clinical duties. Forty-seven attending anesthesiologists and 17 CRNAs attended the workshops, compared with six attending anesthesiologists and five CRNAs who attended the most recent larger-format conference. There was no change in confidence after workshop participation, but participants overwhelmingly expressed enthusiasm and satisfaction with the workshops. The number of facilitator person-hours required to operate the workshops (105 h) was similar to that required to run a single all-day larger-format conference (104.5 h). CONCLUSION: It is feasible and acceptable to incorporate expert-led skills training into the clinical workday. Alongside conferences and large-format instruction, this modality enhances the way we are able to share knowledge with our colleagues. This concept can likely be applied to other skills in various clinical settings.

Tracheal intubation in the critically ill patient.

Tracheal intubation is among the most commonly performed and high-risk procedures in critical care. Indeed, 45% of patients undergoing intubation experience at least one major peri-intubation adverse event, with cardiovascular instability being the most common event reported in 43%, followed by severe hypoxemia in 9% and cardiac arrest in 3% of cases. These peri-intubation adverse events may expose patients to a higher risk of 28-day mortality, and they are more frequently observed with an increasing number of attempts to secure the airway. The higher risk of peri-intubation complications in critically ill patients, compared with the anaesthesia setting, is the consequence of their deranged physiology (e.g. underlying respiratory failure, shock and/or acidosis) and, in this regard, airway management in critical care has been defined as "physiologically difficult". In recent years, several randomised studies have investigated the most effective preoxy-genation strategies, and evidence for the use of positive pressure ventilation in moderate-to-severe hypoxemic patients is established. On the other hand, evidence on interventions to mitigate haemodynamic collapse after intubation has been elusive. Airway management in COVID-19 patients is even more challenging because of the additional risk of infection for healthcare workers, which has influenced clinical choices in this patient group. The aim of this review is to provide an update of the evidence for intubation in critically ill patients with a focus on understanding peri-intubation risks and evaluating interventions to prevent or mitigate adverse events.

Tapia's Syndrome: keep it in mind!

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to revise the etiologic features about Tapia's Syndrome (TS), a condition to particularly consider in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA criteria. The Medline and Embase databases were searched from January 1, 1990, to December 31, 2020. Initially the search yielded 399 manuscripts, which were reduced to 50, upon the application of inclusion criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 65 patients were included in the present review. Mean age was 44±17.5 (DS) years (15-95); M:F ratio was 2.3:1. TS involved mainly the left side (3:2) and was rarely bilateral. Only 2 TS reported cases were due to central causes. Peripheral causes were mainly due to postintubation edema (77%), extrinsic compression (15%), vascular disease (3%), other/not defined (5%). CONCLUSIONS: TS is a rare syndrome that has been related to a combined cranial nerve palsy; while TS due to central causes is very rare, it is mainly related to peripheral causes. A particular attention to TS should be given during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, either since the correlation between Tapia's syndrome, airway management and anesthetic procedures, since the possible implication of the viral infection itself.

Complications of dental infections due to diagnostic delay during COVID-19 pandemic.

We present three cases who presented to the emergency department with severe complications of dental infections: Ludwig's angina, necrotising fasciitis and peritonsillar abscess. All of our cases presented at the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic, with complications of dental infections. They delayed their dental treatment due to the pandemic. The airway management was difficult in our cases. Their mortality risk increased due to complications. We aimed to draw attention to complicated odontogenic infections which are rarely seen in emergency department in the past, however started to show up increasingly particularly at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Airway recommendations for perioperative patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Numerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists. SOURCE: Member society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations that focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 were included. Accelerated screening was used; data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data were organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed among recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended videolaryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent but also show significant differences. Given the paucity of data early in the pandemic, it is not surprising that identified publications largely reflected expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. We suggest future efforts should promote coordinated responses and provide suggestions for studying and establishing best practices in perioperative patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date created, 26 March 2020.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: De nombreuses recommandations ont été publiées pour la prise en charge des voies aériennes et périopératoires pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. Nous avons identifié, synthétisé et comparé les lignes directrices destinées aux anesthésiologistes. SOURCES: Les sites internet des sociétés membres de la Fédération mondiale des sociétés d'anesthésiologistes et de la Société européenne d'anesthésiologie ont été consultés. Les recommandations axées sur la prise en charge périopératoire des voies aériennes des patients atteints de COVID-19 prouvée ou potentielle ont été incluses. Une sélection accélérée a été utilisée; les données ont été extraites par un examinateur et vérifiées par un second. Les données ont été thématiquement organisées en fonction de la phase périopératoire des soins. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Trente ensembles uniques de recommandations ont été identifiés. Aucun de ces ensemble n'a fait état de méthodes de recherche ou de sélection systématiques des données probantes à inclure. Quatre ont été mis à jour après leur publication initiale. Pour l'induction et la prise en charge des voies aériennes, la plupart ont recommandé de minimiser le personnel et de demander à l'anesthésiologiste le plus expérimenté de réaliser l'intubation trachéale. Une congruence significative a été observée parmi les recommandations qui portaient sur les équipements de protection individuelle. Parmi les lignes directrices évoquant les méthodes d'intubation trachéale, la plupart (96 %) ont recommandé la vidéolaryngoscopie, alors qu'il existait une discordance concernant l'utilisation de bronchoscopes flexibles. En peropératoire, 23 % ont suggéré des techniques d'anesthésie spécifiques et la plupart (63 %) ont recommandé une salle d'opération spécifique pour les patients atteints de COVID-19. En postopératoire, une minorité a abordé le sujet des procédures d'extubation (33 %) ou des soins en salle de réveil (40 %). Les considérations non techniques ont été traitées dans 27 % des cas et le soutien psychologique aux fournisseurs de soins de santé dans 10 %. CONCLUSION: Les recommandations pour la prise en charge périopératoire des voies aériennes des patients atteints de COVID-19 se chevauchent dans une large mesure, mais montrent également des différences significatives. Compte tenu de la rareté des données au début de la pandémie, il n'est pas surprenant que les publications identifiées reflètent en grande partie l'opinion d'experts plutôt que de se fonder sur des données probantes empiriques. Nous suggérons que les efforts futurs soient déployés de manière à promouvoir des réponses coordonnées et proposer des suggestions pour étudier et établir les meilleures pratiques chez les patients en période périopératoire. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date de création, 26 mars 2020.

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.