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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A specialized airway management team for COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study of the experience of two Canadian hospitals in Toronto.

BACKGROUND: In the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented number of individuals required endotracheal intubation. To safely face these challenges, expert intubation teams were formed in some institutions. Here, we report on the experience of emergency rapid intubation teams (ERITs) in two Canadian hospitals. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data on all airway management procedures in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients performed by ERITs at two academic hospitals between 3 April and 17 June 2020. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of periprocedural adverse events (hypoxemia, hypotension, and cardiac arrest within 15 min of intubation) and first-attempt intubation success rate. Secondary outcomes included number of intubation attempts, device used to achieve successful airway management, and adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols. RESULTS: During the study period, 123 patients were assessed for airway management, with 117 patients receiving airway interventions performed by the ERIT. The first-attempt success rate for intubation was 92%, and a videolaryngoscope was the final successful device in 93% of procedures. Hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation [SpO2] < 90%) occurred in 28 patients (24%) and severe hypoxemia (SpO2 < 70%) occurred in ten patients (9%). Hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg) occurred in 37 patients (32%) and severe hypotension (SBP < 65 mm Hg) in 11 patients (9%). Adherence to recommended PPE use among providers was high. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of critically ill patients with respiratory failure requiring time-sensitive airway management, specialized ERIT teams showed high rates of successful airway management with high adherence to PPE use. Hypoxemia and hemodynamic instability were common and should be anticipated within the first 15 min following intubation. STUDY REGISTRATION: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04689724); registered 30 December 2020.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Pendant la pandémie de COVID-19, un nombre sans précédent de patients ont dû bénéficier d'une intubation endotrachéale. Pour faire face en toute sécurité à ces défis, des équipes d'experts en intubation ont été formées dans certains établissements. Nous rendons compte ici de l'expérience d'équipes d'intubation rapide d'urgence (ou ERIT, pour Emergency Rapid Intubation Team) dans deux hôpitaux canadiens. MéTHODE: Nous avons colligé rétrospectivement les données concernant toutes les interventions de prise en charge des voies aériennes chez les patients COVID-19 confirmés ou suspectés réalisées par les ERIT dans deux hôpitaux universitaires entre le 3 avril et le 17 juin 2020. Les deux critères d'évaluation principaux étaient l'incidence d'événements indésirables péri-procédure (hypoxémie, hypotension et arrêt cardiaque dans les 15 minutes suivant l'intubation) et le taux de réussite de l'intubation à la première tentative. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient le nombre de tentatives d'intubation, le dispositif utilisé pour parvenir au succès de la prise en charge des voies aériennes et le respect des protocoles concernant les équipements de protection individuelle (EPI). RéSULTATS: Au cours de la période à l'étude, 123 patients ont été évalués pour une prise en charge des voies aériennes, et 117 patients ont bénéficié d'interventions au niveau des voies aériennes réalisées par l'ERIT. Le taux de réussite de la première tentative d'intubation était de 92 %, et un vidéolaryngoscope a été le dispositif menant à une intubation réussie dans 93 % des interventions. Des épisodes d'hypoxémie (saturation périphérique en oxygène [SpO2] < 90 %) sont survenus chez 28 patients (24 %) et dix patients (9 %) ont souffert d'hypoxémie sévère (SpO2 < 70 %). Des épisodes d'hypotension (tension artérielle systolique [TAS] < 90 mmHg) sont survenus chez 37 patients (32 %) et 11 patients (9 %) ont souffert d'hypotension sévère (TAS < 65 mmHg). Le respect de l'utilisation recommandée des EPI chez les soignants était élevé. CONCLUSION: Dans cette cohorte de patients gravement malades atteints d'insuffisance respiratoire et nécessitant une prise en charge des voies aériennes urgente, les équipes spécialisées de l'ERIT ont montré des taux élevés de succès de prise en charge des voies aériennes, avec une adhésion élevée aux protocoles d'utilisation des EPI. L'hypoxémie et l'instabilité hémodynamique étaient fréquentes et devaient être anticipées dans les 15 premières minutes suivant l'intubation. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.ClinicalTrials.gov  (NCT04689724); enregistrée le 30 décembre 2020.

A report on virtual 'Can't intubate, can't oxygenate' conference workshops at the 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound implications for continuing medical education. Travel restrictions, lockdowns and social distancing in an effort to curb spread have meant that medical conferences have been postponed or cancelled. When the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists made the decision to commit to a fully virtual 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting, the organising committee investigated the viability of presenting a virtual 'Can't intubate, can't oxygenate' workshop. A workshop was designed comprising a lecture, case scenario discussion and demonstration of emergency front-of-neck access techniques broadcast from a central hub before participants separated into Zoom® (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, CA, USA) breakout rooms for hands-on practice, guided by facilitators working virtually from their own home studios. Kits containing equipment including a 3D printed larynx, cannula, scalpel and bougie were sent to workshop participants in the weeks before the meeting. Participants were asked to complete pre- and post-workshop surveys. Of 42 participants, 32 responded, with the majority rating the workshop 'better than expected'. All except two respondents felt the workshop met learning objectives. Themes of positive feedback included being impressed with the airway model, the small group size, content and delivery. Feedback focused on previously unperceived advantages of virtual technical skills workshops, including convenience, equitable access and the reusable airway model. Disadvantages noted by respondents included lack of social interaction, inability to trial more expensive airway equipment, and some limitations of the ability of facilitators to review participants' technique. Despite limitations, in our experience, virtual workshops can be planned with innovative solutions to deliver technical skills education successfully.

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 ).

Difficult Airway Management in Adult Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: Statement by the Society of Airway Management.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), often results in severe hypoxemia requiring airway management. Because SARS-CoV-2 virus is spread via respiratory droplets, bag-mask ventilation, intubation, and extubation may place health care workers (HCW) at risk. While existing recommendations address airway management in patients with COVID-19, no guidance exists specifically for difficult airway management. Some strategies normally recommended for difficult airway management may not be ideal in the setting of COVID-19 infection. To address this issue, the Society for Airway Management (SAM) created a task force to review existing literature and current practice guidelines for difficult airway management by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. The SAM task force created recommendations for the management of known or suspected difficult airway in the setting of known or suspected COVID-19 infection. The goal of the task force was to optimize successful airway management while minimizing exposure risk. Each member conducted a literature review on specific clinical practice section utilizing standard search engines (PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar). Existing recommendations and evidence for difficult airway management in the COVID-19 context were developed. Each specific recommendation was discussed among task force members and modified until unanimously approved by all task force members. Elements of Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Reporting Checklist for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines were utilized to develop this statement. Airway management in the COVID-19 patient increases HCW exposure risk. Difficult airway management often takes longer and may involve multiple procedures with aerosolization potential, and strict adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols is mandatory to reduce risk to providers. When a patient's airway risk assessment suggests that awake tracheal intubation is an appropriate choice of technique, and procedures that may cause increased aerosolization of secretions should be avoided. Optimal preoxygenation before induction with a tight seal facemask may be performed to reduce the risk of hypoxemia. Unless the patient is experiencing oxygen desaturation, positive pressure bag-mask ventilation after induction may be avoided to reduce aerosolization. For optimal intubating conditions, patients should be anesthetized with full muscle relaxation. Videolaryngoscopy is recommended as a first-line strategy for airway management. If emergent invasive airway access is indicated, then we recommend a surgical technique such as scalpel-bougie-tube, rather than an aerosolizing generating procedure, such as transtracheal jet ventilation. This statement represents recommendations by the SAM task force for the difficult airway management of adults with COVID-19 with the goal to optimize successful airway management while minimizing the risk of clinician exposure.

The evaluation of maximum condyle-tragus distance can predict difficult airway management without exposing upper respiratory tract; a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Routine preoperative methods to assess airway such as the interincisor distance (IID), Mallampati classification, and upper lip bite test (ULBT) have a certain risk of upper respiratory tract exposure and virus spread. Condyle-tragus maximal distance(C-TMD) can be used to assess the airway, and does not require the patient to expose the upper respiratory tract, but its value in predicting difficult laryngoscopy compared to other indicators (Mallampati classification, IID, and ULBT) remains unknown. The purpose of this study was to observe the value of C-TMD to predict difficult laryngoscopy and the influence on intubation time and intubation attempts, and provide a new idea for preoperative airway assessment during epidemic. METHODS: Adult patients undergoing general anesthesia and tracheal intubation were enrolled. IID, Mallampati classification, ULBT, and C-TMD of each patient were evaluated before the initiation of anesthesia. The primary outcome was intubation time. The secondary outcomes were difficult laryngoscopy defined as the Cormack-Lehane Level > grade 2 and the number of intubation attempts. RESULTS: Three hundred four patients were successfully enrolled and completed the study, 39 patients were identified as difficult laryngoscopy. The intubation time was shorter with the C-TMD>1 finger group 46.8 ± 7.3 s, compared with the C-TMD<1 finger group 50.8 ± 8.6 s (p<0.01). First attempt success rate was higher in the C-TMD>1 finger group 98.9% than in the C-TMD<1 finger group 87.1% (P<0.01). The correlation between the C-TMD and Cormack-Lehane Level was 0.317 (Spearman correlation coefficient, P<0.001), and the area under the ROC curve was 0.699 (P<0.01). The C-TMD < 1 finger width was the most consistent with difficult laryngoscopy (κ = 0.485;95%CI:0.286-0.612) and its OR value was 10.09 (95%CI: 4.19-24.28), sensitivity was 0.469 (95%CI: 0.325-0.617), specificity was 0.929 (95%CI: 0.877-0.964), positive predictive value was 0.676 (95%CI: 0.484-0.745), negative predictive value was 0.847 (95%CI: 0.825-0.865). CONCLUSION: Compared with the IID, Mallampati classification and ULBT, C-TMD has higher value in predicting difficult laryngoscopy and does not require the exposure of upper respiratory tract. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered on October 21, 2019 in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( ChiCTR1900026775 ).

A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during supraglottic airway insertion and removal.

Many guidelines consider supraglottic airway use to be an aerosol-generating procedure. This status requires increased levels of personal protective equipment, fallow time between cases and results in reduced operating theatre efficiency. Aerosol generation has never been quantitated during supraglottic airway use. To address this evidence gap, we conducted real-time aerosol monitoring (0.3-10-µm diameter) in ultraclean operating theatres during supraglottic airway insertion and removal. This showed very low background particle concentrations (median (IQR [range]) 1.6 (0-3.1 [0-4.0]) particles.l-1 ) against which the patient's tidal breathing produced a higher concentration of aerosol (4.0 (1.3-11.0 [0-44]) particles.l-1 , p = 0.048). The average aerosol concentration detected during supraglottic airway insertion (1.3 (1.0-4.2 [0-6.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 11), and removal (2.1 (0-17.5 [0-26.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 12) was no different to tidal breathing (p = 0.31 and p = 0.84, respectively). Comparison of supraglottic airway insertion and removal with a volitional cough (104 (66-169 [33-326]), n = 27), demonstrated that supraglottic airway insertion/removal sequences produced <4% of the aerosol compared with a single cough (p < 0.001). A transient aerosol increase was recorded during one complicated supraglottic airway insertion (which initially failed to provide a patent airway). Detailed analysis of this event showed an atypical particle size distribution and we subsequently identified multiple sources of non-respiratory aerosols that may be produced during airway management and can be considered as artefacts. These findings demonstrate supraglottic airway insertion/removal generates no more bio-aerosol than breathing and far less than a cough. This should inform the design of infection prevention strategies for anaesthetists and operating theatre staff caring for patients managed with supraglottic airways.

Unintended consequences: The impact of airway management modifications introduced in response to COVID-19 on intubations in a tertiary centre emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: In response to COVID-19, we introduced and examined the effect of a raft of modifications to standard practice on adverse events and first-attempt success (FAS) associated with ED intubation. METHODS: An analysis of prospectively collected registry data of all ED intubations over a 3-year period at an Australian Major Trauma Centre. During the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, we introduced modifications to standard practice to reduce the risk to staff including: aerosolisation reduction, comprehensive personal protective equipment for all intubations, regular low fidelity simulation with 'sign-off' for all medical and nursing staff, senior clinician laryngoscopist and the introduction of pre-drawn medications. RESULTS: There were 783 patients, 136 in the COVID-19 era and 647 in the pre-COVID-19 comparator group. The rate of hypoxia was higher during the COVID-19 era compared to pre-COVID-19 (18.4% vs 9.6%, P < 0.005). This occurred despite the FAS rate remaining very high (95.6% vs 93.8%, P = 0.42) and intubation being undertaken by more senior laryngoscopists (consultant 55.9% during COVID-19 vs 22.6% pre-COVID-19, P < 0.001). Other adverse events were similar before and during COVID-19 (hypotension 12.5% vs 7.9%, P = 0.082; bradycardia 1.5% vs 0.5%, P = 0.21). Video laryngoscopy was more likely to be used during COVID-19 (95.6% vs 82.5%, P < 0.001) and induction of anaesthesia more often used ketamine (66.9% vs 42.3%, P < 0.001) and rocuronium (86.8% vs 52.1%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This raft of modifications to ED intubation was associated with significant increase in hypoxia despite a very high FAS rate and more senior first laryngoscopist.

Rapid Dissemination of a COVID-19 Airway Management Simulation Using a Train-the-Trainers Curriculum.

PROBLEM: The most effective way to train clinicians to safely don and doff personal protective equipment (PPE) and perform aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), such as intubations, is unknown when clinician educators are unavailable, as they have been during the COVID-19 pandemic. Proper PPE and airway management techniques are critical to prevent the transmission of respiratory illnesses such as COVID-19. APPROACH: In March 2020, the authors implemented a structured train-the-trainers curriculum to teach PPE techniques and a modified airway management algorithm for suspected COVID-19 patients. A single emergency medicine physician trainer taught 17 subsequent emergency medicine and critical care physician trainers the proper PPE and airway management techniques. The initial trainer and 7 of the subsequent trainers then instructed 99 other emergency medicine resident and attending physicians using in situ simulation. Trainers and learners completed retrospective pre-post surveys to assess their comfort teaching the material and performing the techniques, respectively. OUTCOMES: The surveys demonstrated a significant increase in the trainers' comfort in teaching simulation-based education, from 4.00 to 4.53 on a 5-point Likert scale (P < .005), and in teaching the airway management techniques through simulation, from 2.47 to 4.47 (P < .001). There was no difference in the change in comfort level between those learners who were taught by the initial trainer and those who were taught by the subsequent trainers. These results suggest that the subsequent trainers were as effective in teaching the simulation material as the initial trainer. NEXT STEPS: Work is ongoing to investigate clinician- and patient-specific outcomes, including PPE adherence, appropriate AGP performance, complication rate, and learners' skill retention. Future work will focus on implementing similar train-the-trainers strategies for other health professions, specialties, and high-risk or rare procedures.