Updating our approach to the difficult and failed airway: time to "stop and think"

Introduction of Infection Prevention Tracheal Intubation Protocol during the COVID-19 Pandemic Is Not Associated with First-Pass Success Rates of Endotracheal Intubation in the Emergency Department: A Before-and-After Comparative Study

Aerosols and droplets have put healthcare workers performing airway management at high risk of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Experts have developed endotracheal intubation (ETI) guidelines and protocols to protect intubators from infection. We aimed to determine whether changes in the emergency department (ED) intubation protocol to prevent COVID-19 infection were associated with first-pass success (FPS) rates in ETI. We used data from the airway management registries in two academic EDs. The study was divided into pre-pandemic (January 2018 to January 2020) and pandemic (February 2020 to February 2022) periods. We selected 2476 intubation cases, including 1151 and 1325 cases recorded before and during the pandemic, respectively. During the pandemic, the FPS rate was 92.2%, which did not change significantly, and major complications increased slightly but not significantly compared with the pre-pandemic period. The OR for the FPS of applying infection prevention intubation protocols was 0.72 (p = 0.069) in a subgroup analysis, junior emergency physicians (PGY1 residents) had an FPS of less than 80% regardless of pandemic protocol implementation. The FPS rate of senior emergency physicians in physiologically difficult airways decreased significantly during the pandemic (98.0% to 88.5%). In conclusion, the FPS rate and complications for adult ETI performed by emergency physicians using COVID-19 infection prevention intubation protocols were similar to pre-pandemic conditions.

Intubation practices and outcomes for patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19: a national observational study by the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN)

OBJECTIVE

Intubation practices changed during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect healthcare workers from transmission of disease. Our objectives were to describe intubation characteristics and outcomes for patients tested for SARS CoV-2 infection. We compared outcomes between patients testing SARS COV-2 positive with those testing negative.

METHODS

We conducted a health records review using the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) registry. We included consecutive eligible patients who presented to one of 47 EDs across Canada between March 1, 2020 and June 20, 2021, were tested for SARS-CoV-2 and intubated in the ED. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients experiencing a post-intubation adverse event during the ED stay. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success, intubation practices, and hospital mortality. We used descriptive statistics to summarize variables with subgroup differences examined using t tests, z tests, or chi-squared tests where appropriate with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

Of 1720 patients with suspected COVID-19 who were intubated in the ED during the study period, 337 (19.6%) tested SARS-CoV-2 positive and 1383 (80.4%) SARS-CoV-2 negative. SARS-CoV-2 positive patients presented to hospital with lower oxygen levels than SARS-CoV-2 negative patients (mean pulse oximeter SaO2 86 vs 94%, p < 0.001). In total, 8.5% of patients experienced an adverse event post-intubation. More patients in the SARS-CoV-2 positive subgroup experienced post-intubation hypoxemia (4.5 vs 2.2%, p = 0.019). In-hospital mortality was greater for patients who experienced intubation-related adverse events (43.2 vs 33.2%, p = 0.018). There was no significant difference in adverse event-associated mortality by SARS-CoV-2 status. First-pass success was achieved in 92.4% of all intubations, with no difference by SARS-CoV-2 status.

CONCLUSIONS

During the COVID-19 pandemic, we observed a low risk of adverse events associated with intubation, even though hypoxemia was common in patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2. We observed high rates of first-pass success and low rates of inability to intubate. The limited number of adverse events precluded multivariate adjustments. Study findings should reassure emergency medicine practitioners that system modifications made to intubation processes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic do not appear to be associated with worse outcomes compared to pre-COVID-19 practices.

Emergency airway management in a tertiary trauma centre (AIRMAN): a one-year prospective longitudinal study

PURPOSE

Emergency airway management can be associated with a range of complications including long-term neurologic injury and death. We studied the first-pass success rate with emergency airway management in a tertiary care trauma centre. Secondary outcomes were to identify factors associated with first-pass success and factors associated with adverse events peri-intubation.

METHODS

We performed a single-centre, prospective, observational study of patients ≥ 17 yr old who were intubated in the emergency department (ED), surgical intensive care unit (SICU), medical intensive care unit (MICU), and inpatient wards at our institution. Ethics approval was obtained from the local research ethics board.

RESULTS

In a seven-month period, there were 416 emergency intubations and a first-pass success rate of 73.1%. The first-pass success rates were 57.5% on the ward, 66.1% in the intensive care units (ICUs) and 84.3% in the ED. Equipment also varied by location; videolaryngoscopy use was 65.1% in the ED and only 10.6% on wards. A multivariate regression model using the least absolute shrinkage and selection algorithm (LASSO) showed that the odds ratios for factors associated with two or more intubation attempts were location (wards, 1.23; MICU, 1.24; SICU, 1.19; reference group, ED), physiologic instability (1.19), an anatomically difficult airway (1.05), hypoxemia (1.98), lack of neuromuscular blocker use (2.28), and intubator inexperience (1.41).

CONCLUSIONS

First-pass success rates varied widely between locations within the hospital and were less than those published from similar institutions, except for the ED. We are revamping ICU protocols to improve the first-pass success rate.

A prospective observational study comparing outcomes before and after the introduction of an intubation protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Orotracheal intubation is a life-saving procedure commonly performed in the Intensive Care unit and Emergency Department as a part of emergency airway management. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, our center undertook a prospective observational study to characterize emergency intubation performed in the emergency department and critical care settings at Manitoba's largest tertiary hospital. During this study, a natural experiment emerged when a standardized "COVID-Protected Rapid Sequence Intubation Protocol" was implemented in response to the pandemic. The resultant study aimed to answer the question; in adult ED patients undergoing emergent intubation by EM and CCM teams, does the use of a "COVID-Protected Rapid Sequence Intubation Protocol" impact first-pass success or other intubation-related outcomes?

METHODS

A single-center prospective quasi-experimental before and after study was conducted. Data were prospectively collected on consecutive emergent intubations. The primary outcome was the difference in first-pass success rates. Secondary outcomes included best Modified Cormack-Lehane view, hypoxemia, hypotension, esophageal intubation, cannot intubate cannot oxygenate scenarios, CPR post intubation, vasopressors required post intubation, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), and mechanical ventilation days.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 630 patients, 416 in the pre-protocol period and 214 in the post-protocol period. First-pass success rates in the pre-protocol period were found to be 73.1% (n = 304). Following the introduction of the protocol, first-pass success rates increased to 82.2% (n = 176, p = 0.0105). There was a statistically significant difference in Modified Cormack-Lehane view favoring the protocol (p = 0.0191). Esophageal intubation rates were found to be 5.1% pre-protocol introduction versus 0.5% following the introduction of the protocol (p = 0.0172).

CONCLUSION

A "COVID-Protected Protocol" implemented by Emergency Medicine and Critical Care teams in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased first-pass success rates and decreases in adverse events.

Errors in Breast Imaging: How to Reduce Errors and Promote a Safety Environment

Medical errors have a significant impact on patient care, worker safety, and health care finances. Breast imaging has the most common cause of organ-related misdiagnosis subject to malpractice suits. In order to effectively develop strategies to prevent errors, breast imaging radiologists must first understand the underlying causes of the errors that occur in the breast imaging setting. Errors in breast imaging can be related to errors in interpretation, improper workup of imaging findings, procedural errors, or errors in communication to the patient or other medical staff. The Yorkshire contributory factors framework was developed to identify factors that contribute to the errors in a hospital setting and can be adapted for use in the breast imaging setting. Within this framework, active failures refer to errors that directly affect the patient. Active errors include slips (including biases), lapses, and mistakes. The framework describes how active errors often result from factors that occur uphill from these active errors at different levels within the system. Once error causes are understood, there are concrete strategies and tools that breast imaging radiologists can implement to decrease adverse events, reduce medical errors, and promote a safety environment in the breast imaging clinic. Error mitigation tools can be summarized using the acronym SAFE, which includes support the team, ask questions, focus on a task, and effectively communicate/ensure equipment optimization/safe environment. Knowledge of errors commonly seen in a breast imaging clinic represent an opportunity for constructive changes and, ultimately, improved health care delivery.

Educational Interventions to Enhance Situation Awareness: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STATEMENT

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of educational interventions on health care professionals' situation awareness (SA). We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, HW Wilson, ERIC, Scopus, EMBASE, PsycINFO, psycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioural Science Collection and the Cochrane library. Articles that reported a targeted SA intervention or a broader intervention incorporating SA, and an objective outcome measure of SA were included. Thirty-nine articles were eligible for inclusion, of these 4 reported targeted SA interventions. Simulation-based education (SBE) was the most prevalent educational modality (31 articles). Meta-analysis of trial designs (19 articles) yielded a pooled moderate effect size of 0.61 (95% confidence interval = 0.17 to 1.06, P = 0.007, I = 42%) in favor of SBE as compared with other modalities and a nonsignificant moderate effect in favor of additional nontechnical skills training (effect size = 0.54, 95% confidence interval = 0.18 to 1.26, P = 0.14, I = 63%). Though constrained by the number of articles eligible for inclusion, our results suggest that in comparison with other modalities, SBE yields better SA outcomes.