Comparison of Vie Scope® and Macintosh laryngoscopes for intubation during resuscitation by paramedics wearing personal protective equipment.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is still the gold standard of airway management, but in cases of sudden cardiac arrest in patients with suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, ETI is associated with risks for both the patient and the medical personnel. We hypothesized that the Vie Scope® is more useful for endotracheal intubation of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cardiac arrest patients than the conventional laryngoscope with Macintosh blade when operators are wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). METHODS: Study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial performed by Emergency Medical Services in Poland. Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis who needed cardiopulmonary resuscitation in prehospital setting were included. Patients under 18 years old or with criteria predictive of impossible intubation under direct laryngoscopy, were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated 1:1 to Vie Scope® versus direct laryngoscopy with a Macintosh blade. Study groups were compared on success of intubation attempts, time to intubation, glottis visualization and number of optimization maneuvers. RESULTS: We enrolled 90 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) patients, aged 43-92 years. Compared to the VieScope® laryngoscope, use of the Macintosh laryngoscope required longer times for tracheal intubation with an estimated mean difference of -48 s (95%CI confidence interval [CI], -60.23, -35.77; p < 0.001). Moreover VieScope® improved first attempt success rate, 93.3% vs. 51.1% respectively (odds ratio [OR] = 13.39; 95%CI: 3.62, 49.58; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The use of the Vie Scope® laryngoscope in OHCA patients improved the first attempt success rate, and reduced intubation time compared to Macintosh laryngoscope in paramedics wearing PPE for against aerosol generating procedures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials registration number NCT04365608.

Intubation using VieScope vs. Video laryngoscopy in full personal protective equipment - a randomized, controlled simulation trial.

BACKGROUND: VieScope is a new type of laryngoscope, with a straight, transparent and illuminated blade, allowing for direct line of sight towards the larynx. In addition, VieScope is disposed of after single patient use, which can avoid cross-contaminations of contagious material. This has gained importance especially when treating patients with highly contagious infectious diseases, such as during the SARS-CoV2 pandemic. In this context, VieScope has not been evaluated yet in a clinical study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This study compared intubation with VieScope to video-laryngoscopy (GlideScope) in normal and difficult airway in a standardized airway manikin in a randomized controlled simulation trial. Thirty-five medical specialists were asked to perform endotracheal intubation in full personal protective equipment (PPE). Primary endpoint was correct tube position. First-pass rate (i.e., success rate at the first attempt), time until intubation and time until first correct ventilation were registered as secondary endpoints. RESULTS: For correct tracheal tube placement, there was no significant difference between VieScope and GlideScope in normal and difficult airway conditions. VieScope had over 91% fist-pass success rate in normal airway setting. VieScope had a comparable success rate to GlideScope in difficult airway, but had a significantly longer time until intubation and time until ventilation. CONCLUSION: VieScope and GlideScope had high success rates in normal as well as in difficult airway. There was no unrecognized esophageal intubation in either group. Overall time for intubation was longer in the VieScope group, though in an acceptable range given in literature. Results from this simulation study suggest that VieScope may be an acceptable alternative for tracheal intubation in full PPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at the German Clinical Trials Register www.drks.de (Registration date: 09/11/2020; TrialID: DRKS00023406 ).

Time to adapt in the pandemic era: a prospective randomized non -inferiority study comparing time to intubate with and without the barrier box.

BACKGROUND: The challenges posed by the spread of COVID-19 disease through aerosols have compelled anesthesiologists to modify their airway management practices. Devices such as barrier boxes are being considered as potential adjuncts to full PPE's to limit the aerosol spread. Usage of the barrier box raises concerns of delay in time to intubate (TTI). We designed our study to determine if using a barrier box with glidescope delays TTI within acceptable parameters to make relevant clinical conclusions. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients were enrolled in this prospective non-inferiority controlled trial and were randomly allocated to either group C (without the barrier box) or the study group BB (using barrier box). The primary measured endpoint is time to intubate (TTI), which is defined as time taken from loss of twitches confirmed with a peripheral nerve stimulator to confirmation of end-tidal CO 2. 15 s was used as non-inferiority margin for the purpose of the study. We used an unpaired two-sample single-sided t-test to test our non- inferiority hypothesis (H 0: Mean TTI diff ≥15 s, H A: Mean TTI diff < 15 s). Secondary endpoints include the number of attempts at intubation, lowest oxygen saturation during induction, and the need for bag-mask ventilation. RESULTS: Mean TTI in group C was 42 s (CI 19.2 to 64.8) vs. 52.1 s (CI 26.1 to 78) in group BB. The difference in mean TTI was 10.1 s (CI -∞ to 14.9). We rejected the null hypothesis and concluded with 95% confidence that the difference of the mean TTI between the groups is less than < 15 s (95% CI -∞ to 14.9,p = 0.0461). Our induction times were comparable (67.7 vs. 65.9 s).100% of our patients were intubated on the first attempt in both groups. None of our patients needed rescue breaths. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in patients with normal airway exam, scheduled for elective surgeries, our barrier box did not cause any clinically significant delay in TTI when airway manipulation is performed by well-trained providers. The study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04411056) on May 27, 2020.

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.

MIST (Modified Intubating Sequence for Transmissibility) Bundle for Infectious Diseases with Aerosol Hazard.

The current global severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has magnified the risk to healthcare providers when inititiating airway management, and safe tracheal intubation has become of paramount importance. Mitigation of risk to frontline providers requires airway management to be an orchestrated exercise based on training and purposeful simulation. Role allocation and closed-loop communication form the foundation of this exercise. We describe a methodical, 10-step approach from decision-making and meticulous drug and equipment choices to donning of personal protective equipment, and procedural concerns. This bundled approach will help reduce unplanned actions, which in turn may reduce the risk of aerosol transmission during airway management in resource-limited settings.

The case for a 3rd generation supraglottic airway device facilitating direct vision placement.

Although 1st and 2nd generation supraglottic airway devices (SADs) have many desirable features, they are nevertheless inserted in a similar 'blind' way as their 1st generation predecessors. Clinicians mostly still rely entirely on subjective indirect assessments to estimate correct placement which supposedly ensures a tight seal. Malpositioning and potential airway compromise occurs in more than half of placements. Vision-guided insertion can improve placement. In this article we propose the development of a 3rd generation supraglottic airway device, equipped with cameras and fiberoptic illumination, to visualise insertion of the device, enable immediate manoeuvres to optimise SAD position, verify whether correct 1st and 2nd seals are achieved and check whether size selected is appropriate. We do not provide technical details of such a '3rd generation' device, but rather present a theoretical analysis of its desirable properties, which are essential to overcome the remaining limitations of current 1st and 2nd generation devices. We also recommend that this further milestone improvement, i.e. ability to place the SAD accurately under direct vision, be eligible for the moniker '3rd generation'. Blind insertion of SADs should become the exception and we anticipate, as in other domains such as central venous cannulation and nerve block insertions, vision-guided placement becoming the gold standard.

Recommendations for Prehospital Airway Management in Patients with Suspected COVID-19 Infection.

In light of the rapid spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and hospitals nationwide have developed new protocols to address infection control as well as the care of critical patients. Airway management has been particularly difficult; the challenge of quickly establishing an airway in patients must be balanced by the risk of aerosolizing respiratory secretions and putting the provider at risk of infection. Significant attention has been given to developing protocols for the emergency department and critical care units, but little guidance regarding establishing airway and respiratory support for patients in the prehospital setting has been made available. While some of the recommendations can be extrapolated from hospital guidelines, other factors such as environment and available resources make these protocols unfeasible. Through review of current literature the authors established recommendations regarding airway management and the provision of respiratory support to patients developing respiratory failure related to COVID-19.

COVID-19 Airway Management Isolation Chamber.

OBJECTIVE: During the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), health care workers are innovating patient care and safety measures. Unfortunately, many of these are not properly tested for efficacy. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of the novel COVID-19 Airway Management Isolation Chamber (CAMIC) to contain and evacuate particulate. STUDY DESIGN: Multi-institutional proof-of-concept study. SETTING: Two academic institutions: Walter Reed National Military Medical Center (WRNMMC) and Madigan Army Medical Center (MAMC). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Smoke, saline nebulizer, and simulated working port models were developed to assess the efficacy of the CAMIC to contain and remove ultrafine particles. Particulate counts were collected at set time intervals inside and outside the system. RESULTS: With the CAMIC on, smoke particulate counts inside the chamber significantly decreased over time: r(18) = -0.88, P < .001, WRNMMC; r(18) = -0.91, P < .001, MAMC. Similarly, saline nebulizer particulate counts inside the chamber significantly decreased over time: r(23) = -0.82, P < .001, WRNMMC; r(23) = -0.70, P < .001, MAMC. In the working port model, particulate counts inside the chamber significantly decreased over time: r(23) = -0.95, P < .001, WRNMMC; r(23) = -0.85, P < .001, MAMC. No significant leak was detected in the smoke, saline nebulizer, or working port model when the CAMIC was turned on. CONCLUSIONS: The CAMIC system appears to provide a barrier that actively removes particles from within the chamber and limits egress. Further studies are necessary to determine clinical applicability. The CAMIC may serve as an adjunct to improve health care worker safety and patient outcomes.

Reducing Aerosol Generation During Ventilator Weaning in a Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patient Using a Supraglottic Airway: A Case Report.

We report weaning from mechanical ventilation with no coughing in a patient with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Substituting the endotracheal tube for a supraglottic airway (SGA), which is less stimulating to the trachea, can reduce coughing with weaning from mechanical ventilation and extubation. Personal protective equipment is in short supply worldwide. Reducing spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is beneficial in terms of occupational health of health care workers.

Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Barrier Enclosure Techniques in Protection of Healthcare Workers During Tracheal Intubation and Extubation.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has created serious challenges to anesthesiologists. As hospitalized patients' respiratory function deteriorates, many will require endotracheal intubation. Airway management of infected patients risks aerosolization of viral-loaded droplets that pose serious hazards to the anesthesiologist and all health care personnel present. The addition of an enclosure barrier during airway management minimizes the hazard by entrapping the droplets and possibly the aerosols within an enclosed space adding additional protection for health care workers. The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of different barrier enclosure techniques during tracheal intubation and extubation.