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.

Mesenchymal stromal cell extracellular vesicles as therapy for acute and chronic respiratory diseases: A meta-analysis.

Preclinical studies suggest mesenchymal stromal cell extracellular vesicles (MSC-EVs) reduce inflammation and improve organ function in lung diseases; however, an objective analysis of all available data is needed prior to translation. Using rigorous meta-research methods, we determined the effectiveness of MSC-EVs for preclinical respiratory diseases and identified experimental conditions that may further refine this therapy. A systematic search of MEDLINE/Embase identified 1167 records. After screening, 52 articles were included for data extraction and evaluated for risk of bias and quality of reporting in study design. A random effects meta-analysis was conducted for acute lung injury (ALI; N = 23), bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD; N = 8) and pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH; N = 7). Subgroup analyses identified EV methods/characteristics that may be associated with improved efficacy. Data is presented as standardized mean differences (SMD) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For ALI, MSC-EVs markedly reduced lung injury (SMD -4.33, CI -5.73 to -2.92), vascular permeability (SMD -2.43, CI -3.05 to -1.82), and mortality (RR 0.39, CI 0.22 to 0.68). Small EVs were more consistently effective than large EVs whereas no differences were observed between tissue sources, immunocompatibility or isolation techniques. For BPD, alveolarization was improved by MSC-EVs (SMD -1.45, CI -2.08 to -0.82) with small EVs more consistently beneficial then small/large EVs. In PAH, right ventricular systolic pressure (SMD -4.16, CI -5.68 to -2.64) and hypertrophy (SMD -2.80, CI -3.68 to -1.91) were significantly attenuated by EVs. In BPD and PAH, EVs isolated by ultracentrifugation demonstrated therapeutic benefit whereas tangential flow filtration (N = 2) displayed minimal efficacy. Lastly, risk of bias and quality of reporting for experimental design were consistently unclear across all studies. Our findings demonstrate clear potential of MSC-EVs to be developed as therapy for acute and chronic lung diseases. However, greater transparency in research design and direct comparisons of isolation technique and EV subtypes are needed to generate robust evidence to guide clinical translation. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020145334.