Preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation: a consensus guideline from the Project for Universal Management of Airways and international airway societies.

Across multiple disciplines undertaking airway management globally, preventable episodes of unrecognised oesophageal intubation result in profound hypoxaemia, brain injury and death. These events occur in the hands of both inexperienced and experienced practitioners. Current evidence shows that unrecognised oesophageal intubation occurs sufficiently frequently to be a major concern and to merit a co-ordinated approach to address it. Harm from unrecognised oesophageal intubation is avoidable through reducing the rate of oesophageal intubation, combined with prompt detection and immediate action when it occurs. The detection of 'sustained exhaled carbon dioxide' using waveform capnography is the mainstay for excluding oesophageal placement of an intended tracheal tube. Tube removal should be the default response when sustained exhaled carbon dioxide cannot be detected. If default tube removal is considered dangerous, urgent exclusion of oesophageal intubation using valid alternative techniques is indicated, in parallel with evaluation of other causes of inability to detect carbon dioxide. The tube should be removed if timely restoration of sustained exhaled carbon dioxide cannot be achieved. In addition to technical interventions, strategies are required to address cognitive biases and the deterioration of individual and team performance in stressful situations, to which all practitioners are vulnerable. These guidelines provide recommendations for preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation that are relevant to all airway practitioners independent of geography, clinical location, discipline or patient type.

Project for Universal Management of Airways - part 1: concept and methods.

Multiple professional groups and societies worldwide have produced airway management guidelines. These are typically targeted at the process of tracheal intubation by a particular provider group in a restricted category of patients and reflect practice preferences in a particular geographical region. The existence of multiple distinct guidelines for some (but not other) closely related circumstances, increases complexity and may obscure the underlying principles that are common to all of them. This has the potential to increase cognitive load; promote the grouping of ideas in silos; impair teamwork; and ultimately compromise patient care. Development of a single set of airway management guidelines that can be applied across and beyond these domains may improve implementation; promote standardisation; and facilitate collaboration between airway practitioners from diverse backgrounds. A global multidisciplinary group of both airway operators and assistants was assembled. Over a 3-year period, a review of the existing airway guidelines and multiple reviews of the primary literature were combined with a structured process for determining expert consensus. Any discrepancies between these were analysed and reconciled. Where evidence in the literature was lacking, recommendations were made by expert consensus. Using the above process, a set of evidence-based airway management guidelines was developed in consultation with airway practitioners from a broad spectrum of disciplines and geographical locations. While consistent with the recommendations of the existing English language guidelines, these universal guidelines also incorporate the most recent concepts in airway management as well as statements on areas not widely addressed by the existing guidelines. The recommendations will be published in four parts that respectively address: airway evaluation; airway strategy; airway rescue and communication of airway outcomes. Together, these universal guidelines will provide a single, comprehensive approach to airway management that can be consistently applied by airway practitioners globally, independent of their clinical background or the circumstances in which airway management occurs.

An international survey about rapid sequence intubation of 10,003 anaesthetists and 16 airway experts.

Pulmonary aspiration of gastric content is a significant cause of anaesthesia-related morbidity and mortality. High-quality prospective randomised evidence to support prevention strategies, such as rapid sequence intubation, is difficult to generate due to well-described practical, ethical and methodological barriers. We aimed to generate an understanding of worldwide practice through surveying clinically practicing anaesthetists and airway experts. Our survey was designed to assess the influence of: departmental standards; patient factors; socio-economic factors; training; and supervision. We surveyed 10,003 anaesthetists who responded to an invitation to participate on LinkedIn. We then surveyed 16 international airway experts on the same content. When asked about a hypothetical patient with intestinal obstruction, respondents expressed preferences for [OR (95%CI)]: the head-up or -down position 4.26 (3.98-4.55), p < 0.001; nasogastric tube insertion 29.5 (26.9-32.3), p < 0.001; and the use of cricoid force 2.80 (2.62-3.00), p < 0.001, as compared with a hypothetical patient without intestinal obstruction also requiring rapid sequence intubation. Respondents from lower income countries were more likely to prefer [OR (95%CI]: the supine position 2.33 (2.00-2.63), p < 0.001; nasogastric tube insertion 1.29 (1.09-1.51), p = 0.002; and cricoid force application 2.54 (2.09-3.09), p < 0.001 as compared with respondents from higher income countries for a hypothetical patient with intestinal obstruction. This survey, which we believe is the largest of its kind, demonstrates that preferences for positioning, nasogastric tube use and cricoid force application during rapid sequence intubation vary substantially. Achieving agreed consensus may yield better training in the principles of rapid sequence intubation.

Inconsistent size nomenclature in extraglottic airway devices.

BACKGROUND: Extraglottic airway devices (EADs) are frequently used airway devices, yet often they seal poorly, resulting in a functionally unacceptable leak. Optimal size selection of the EAD is therefore critical to the safe and effective use of an EAD. This review is designed to delineate the sizing recommendations of EADs and indicate the differences in order to make the optimal choice for device effectiveness and patient safety. METHODS: We searched manufacturing' guidelines regarding size recommendations of EADs. Alternative size selection suggestions were obtained through an extensive literature search. RESULTS: Most manufacturers offer different types and a wide range of (up to 8 different) sizes of EADs. Size ranges offered by manufacturers are most often based on weight, although some manufacturers offer alternative EADs based on a variety of patient variables (age, gender, height). Even 'one-size-fits-all' adult EADs have been introduced into clinical practice. Special formulae and methods are suggested to aid the clinician to find the optimal EAD size, especially for children. CONCLUSION: Selecting the appropriate size of an EAD is critical to optimal use, although applying the correct size of an EAD has been subject of controversy, as recommendations on sizing differ substantially and are far from a coherent and universal sizing system. Successful use of an EAD depends in part on appropriate size selection, in addition to clinical judgment, as well as patient anatomy and physiology. Standardization in the use of EAD sizes and a consensus about a consistent size systematic of EADs would benefit to promote a safer clinical practice in airway management.

Anticipation of the difficult airway: preoperative airway assessment, an educational and quality improvement tool.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the potentially difficult airway (DA) is a critical aspect of resident education. We investigated the impact of a new assessment form on airway prediction and management by anaesthesia residents. We hypothesized that residents would demonstrate improvement in evaluation of DAs over the study duration. METHODS: After IRB approval, anaesthesia residents were randomized into two groups: control (existing form) and experimental (new form). Data were collected prospectively from August 2008 to May 2010 on all non-obstetric adult patients undergoing non-emergent surgery. RESULTS: Eight thousand three hundred and sixty-four independent preoperative assessments were collected and 8075 were analysed. The experimental group had the higher completion rate than the control group (94.3% vs 84.3%, P=0.001). DA prediction was higher for the control group (71.2%) compared with the experimental group (69.1%; P=0.032). A significant improvement in prediction rates was found over time for the experimental group (likelihood estimate=0.00068, P=0.031). CONCLUSIONS: The use of a comprehensive airway assessment did not improve resident ability to predict a DA in an academic, tertiary-based hospital, anaesthesiology residency training programme.

Submental intubation: a literature review.

A literature review was performed to analyse the evidence supporting submental intubation and to aid in the development of a new airway algorithm in craniofacial surgery patients. A systematic search of Pub Med, OVID, the Cochrane Database and Google Scholar between January 1984 and April 2011 was performed. Measured variables included the outcome, complications, publishing specialty journal and method of intubation including technique modifications, indications for the procedure, devices utilized and the total procedure time to complete the submental intubation. Of the 842 patient cases from 41 articles represented in the review, the success rate was 100%. Minor complications were reported in 60 patients and included superficial skin infections (N=23), damage to the tube apparatus (N=10), fistula formation (N=10), right mainstem bronchus tube dislodgement/obstruction (N=5), hypertrophic scarring (N=3), accidental extubation in paediatric patients (N=2), excessive bronchial flexion (N=2), lingual nerve paresthesia (N=1), venous bleeding (N=2), mucocele (N=1), and dislodgement of the throat pack sticker in the submental wound (N=1). The average reported time to complete a submental intubation was 9.9 min. Submental intubation is a safe, effective and time efficient method for securing an airway when increased surgical exposure or restoration of occlusion is a priority.

A randomized clinical comparison of the Intersurgical i-gel and LMA Unique in non-obese adults during general surgery.

BACKGROUND: The i-gel is a cuffless, single-use supralaryngeal airway device designed to provide a more effective seal than the laryngeal mask airway (LMA). Although the superiority of the i-gel compared to the LMA Classic was determined in a previous study, no studies have been performed that compare it to the disposable LMA Unique. The aim of this study was to compare the Intersurgical i-gelTM against the LMA UniqueTM (uLMA) in terms of ease of placement, time of insertion, and adequacy of placement through a randomized, controlled clinical trial. METHODS: Following Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval and written informed consent, 50 adult patients were recruited for this study. All enrolled patients were ASA 1-2, Mallampati I-II, and scheduled to receive general anesthesia. Patients were randomized to have either the i-gel or the uLMA placed for airway management. After standardized induction techniques, the airway was secured with the assigned device. All patients were interviewed postoperatively for sore throat, hoarseness, and dysphagia. Standard vital signs, end-tidal CO2, tidal volumes, and peak pressures were recorded. Insertion time, leak pressures, and anatomic placement as assessed fiberoptically for the i-gel were recorded. Ease of placement and complications were also recorded. RESULTS: The insertion time was significantly less with the i-gel (21.04±12.6 s vs. 30.04±14.1 s, P=0.02). An inadequate seal was noted in three patients with the i-gel, and it was exchanged for the uLMA in all three cases. There were no significant differences in the ease of insertion, leak pressures, or fiberoptic view. Most of the fiberoptic views, as assessed through the drain tube, demonstrated esophageal mucosa (22/25). Patients receiving the i-gel were significantly more likely to require a second attempt at insertion by the anesthesiologist (OR 8.11, CI 1.1-58.6, P=0.03). Finally, patients receiving the size 5 i-gel were significantly more likely to complain of immediate postoperative symptoms, such as sore throat and dysphagia (OR 29.32, CI 1.4-613.1, P=0.03). CONCLUSION: Although the i-gel had a faster insertion time in comparison to the uLMA, there was a greater need for repeat insertions. The weight criteria established by the manufacturer may need to be readjusted to recommend a larger size device in some patients less than 90 kg because all of the repeat insertions were in patients weighing more than 80 kg. In all other aspects of its use, the i-gel performed similarly to the uLMA.

Seeing is believing: the importance of video laryngoscopy in teaching and in managing the difficult airway.

Of the several million patients who undergo surgery in North America annually, a large proportion undergo intubation of the trachea. In approximately 90% of these patients, the endotracheal tube is introduced using a traditional laryngoscope with a battery in the handle and a small bulb near the tip of the blade. This bulb provides a limited and often dim view of the glottic structures. In about 10% of cases, the patient is intubated using a flexible fiberoptic intubating scope. The authors have developed a video laryngoscope that preserves the standard blade configuration with a modified handle. A 3-mm image light guide is built into the blade, replacing the bulb. A small TV camera with an incorporated light bundle is inserted into the handle. A wide-angle panoramic view of the upper airway anatomy is displayed on a TV screen, which can be positioned at a convenient working distance. The use of a TV monitor is a well-accepted standard during minimally invasive surgical procedures.