The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study.

The current international COVID-19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air-purifying respirators and powered air-purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty-five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. Treatment times and wearer comfort were determined and compared. In the wearer comfort evaluation form, operators rated mobility, noise, heat, vision and speech intelligibility. All anaesthetists accomplished the treatment objectives of all study arms without adverse events. Total mean (SD) intubation times for the four interventions did not show significant differences between the powered and the standard respirator groups, being 16.4 (8.6) vs. 19.2 (5.2) seconds with the Airtraq™; 11.4 (3.4) vs. 10.0 (2.1) seconds with the videolaryngoscope; 39.2 (4.5) vs. 40.1 (4.8) seconds with the fibreoptic bronchoscope scope; and 15.4 (5.7) vs. 15.1 (5.0) seconds for standard tracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, respectively. Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.

A randomised crossover simulation study comparing the impact of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear substance personal protection equipment on the performance of advanced life support interventions.

Recent incidents involving chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear substances have stressed the importance of sufficient personal protection equipment for medical first-responders. Modern lightweight, battery-independent, suit ensembles may prove superior to the current protective suit used in the UK. This study compared the powered respiratory protective suit (PRPS ensemble) with a lightweight suit consisting of a SARATOGA® Multipurpose CBRN Protective Coverall Polyprotect 12 in conjunction with the Avon C50 Respirator/Avon CBRNF12CE filter canister and butyl rubber protective gloves (Polyprotect 12 ensemble). Thirty anaesthetists carried out a standardised resuscitation scenario either unprotected (control) or wearing the PRPS or Polyprotect 12 ensembles in a randomised, crossover simulation study. Treatment times for five simulated advanced life support interventions (application of monitoring; bag/mask ventilation; tracheal intubation; drug and fluid administration; and external pacing) were measured. Wearer comfort was also assessed for the two protective suits by questionnaire. All participants accomplished the treatment objectives of all study arms without adverse events. Total mean (SD) completion time for the five interventions was significantly longer for the PRPS compared with the Polyprotect 12 ensemble (204 (53) s vs. 149 (36) s, respectively; p < 0.0001). Participants rated mobility, noise, heat, vision, dexterity and speech intelligibility significantly better in the Polyprotect 12 ensemble compared with the PRPS ensemble. The combination of a lightweight Polyprotect 12 suit and an Avon C50 air-purifying respirator is preferable to the powered respiratory protective suit during simulated emergency life support, due to a combination of shorter task completion times and improved mobility, communication and dexterity.