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.

Dead in the air- The need to adapt to CoVID adaptations.

During the recent CoVID-19 pandemic, airway management recommendations have been provided to decrease aerosolization and risk of viral spread to healthcare providers. High efficiency particulate air (HEPA) viral filters and adaptors are one way to decrease the risk of aerosolization during intubation. When placed proximal to the ventilator circuit, these viral filters and adaptors can create a significant amount of dead space, which in our smallest patients can significantly impact effective ventilation. We report a case of hypoventilation in a pediatric patient due to lack of provider team appreciation or ventilator sensing of additional dead space due to HEPA viral filter and adaptor.

Patient barrier acceptance during airway management among anesthesiologists: a simulation pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Protection of healthcare providers (HCP) has been a serious challenge in the management of patients during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Additional physical barriers have been created to enhance personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, user acceptability of two novel barriers was evaluated and the performance of airway management using PPE alone versus PPE plus the additional barrier were compared. METHODS: An open-label, double-armed simulation pilot study was conducted. Each participant performed bag-mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation using a GlideScope in two scenarios: 1) PPE donned, followed by 2) PPE donned plus the addition of either the isolation chamber (IC) or aerosol box (AB). Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy was timed. Participants completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants from the Department of Anesthesia were included in the study. Pre- and post-simulation questionnaire responses supported the acceptance of additional barriers. There was no significant difference in intubating times across all groups (PPE vs. IC 95% CI, 26.3, 35.1; PPE vs. AB 95% CI, 25.9, 35.5; IC vs. AB 95% CI, 23.6, 39.1). Comparison of post-simulation questionnaire responses between IC and AB showed no significant difference. Participants did not find the additional barriers negatively affected communication, visualization, or maneuverability. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the IC and AB were comparable, and there was no negative impact on performance under testing conditions. Our study suggests the positive acceptance of additional patient protection barriers by anesthesia providers during airway management.

Barrier enclosure use during aerosol-generating medical procedures: A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Barrier enclosure devices were introduced to protect against infectious disease transmission during aerosol generating medical procedures (AGMP). Recent discussion in the medical community has led to new designs and adoption despite limited evidence. A scoping review was conducted to characterize devices being used and their performance. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of formal databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, Scopus), grey literature, and hand-searched relevant journals. Forward and reverse citation searching was completed on included articles. Article/full-text screening and data extraction was performed by two independent reviewers. Studies were categorized by publication type, device category, intended medical use, and outcomes (efficacy - ability to contain particles; efficiency - time to complete AGMP; and usability - user experience). RESULTS: Searches identified 6489 studies and 123 met criteria for inclusion (k = 0.81 title/abstract, k = 0.77 full-text). Most articles were published in 2020 (98%, n = 120) as letters/commentaries (58%, n = 71). Box systems represented 42% (n = 52) of systems described, while plastic sheet systems accounted for 54% (n = 66). The majority were used for airway management (67%, n = 83). Only half of articles described outcome measures (54%, n = 67); 82% (n = 55) reporting efficacy, 39% (n = 26) on usability, and 15% (n = 10) on efficiency. Efficacy of devices in containing aerosols was limited and frequently dependent on use of suction devices. CONCLUSIONS: While use of various barrier enclosure devices has become widespread during this pandemic, objective data of efficacy, efficiency, and usability is limited. Further controlled studies are required before adoption into routine clinical practice.