Impact of personal protective equipment on prehospital endotracheal intubation performance in simulated manikin

Continuous aerosol monitoring and comparison of aerosol exposure based on smoke dispersion distance and concentrations during oxygenation therapy

This study evaluated the aerosol exposure risks while using common noninvasive oxygenation devices. A simulated mannequin was designed to breathe at a minute ventilation of 20 L/min and used the following oxygen-therapy devices: nasal cannula oxygenation (NCO) at 4 and 15 L/min, nonrebreathing mask (NRM) at 15 L/min, simple mask at 6 L/min, combination of NCO at 15 L/min and NRM at 15 L/min, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) at 50 L/min, and flush rate NRM. Two-dimension of the dispersion distance and the aerosol concentrations were measured at head, trunk, and foot around the mannequin for over 10 min. HFNC and flush-rate NRM yielded the longest dispersion distance and highest aerosol concentrations over the three sites of the mannequin than the other oxygenation devices and should use with caution. For flow rates of < 15 L/min, oxygenation devices with mask-like effects, such as NRM or NCO with NRM, decreased aerosol dispersion more effectively than NCO alone or a simple mask. In the upright position, the foot area exhibited the highest aerosol concentration regardless of the oxygenation device than the head-trunk areas of the mannequin. Healthcare workers should be alert even at the foot side of the patient while administering oxygenation therapy.

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.

Association between First-pass Intubation Success and Enhanced PPE Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated first-pass endotracheal intubation (ETI) success within the critical care transport (CCT) environment using a natural experiment created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our primary objective was to evaluate if the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) or the COVID-19 time period was associated with differences in first-pass success rates of ETI within a large CCT system with a high baseline ETI first-pass success rate. We hypothesized that pandemic-related challenges would be associated with decreased first-pass success rates.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective before-after cohort study of airway management by CCT personnel relative to the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a mixed effects logistic regression to evaluate the association between enhanced PPE (N95 mask, eye protection) use and the pandemic time period on first-pass intubation success, while controlling for other factors potentially associated with intubation success. Variables in the final model included patient demographics (age, sex, and race), body mass index, medical category (trauma versus non-trauma), interfacility or scene response, blade size (Macintosh 3 versus 4), use of face mask, use of eye protection, and crew member length of service.

RESULTS

We identified 1279 cases involving intubation attempts on adult patients during the study period. A total of 1133 cases were included in the final analysis, with an overall first-pass success rate of 95.7% (96.4% pre-COVID-19 and 94.8% during COVID-19). In our final mixed effects logistic regression model, enhanced PPE use and the COVID-19 time period were not associated with first-pass intubation success rate.

CONCLUSION

In a large regional CCT system with a high ETI first-pass success rate, neither PPE use nor the COVID-19 time period were associated with differences in ETI first-pass success while controlling for relevant patient and operational factors. Other emergency medical services (EMS) systems may have encountered different effects of pandemic-related PPE use on intubation success rates. Further studies are needed to evaluate the influence of sustained use of enhanced PPE or changes in training or procedural experience on post-pandemic ETI first-pass success rates for non-CCT EMS clinicians.

Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3).

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

Maintaining Prehospital Intubation Success with COVID-19 Personal Protective Precautions

Background:

Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention for exposure to airborne infective pathogens, including the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). During the recent pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) was essential to protect staff during intubation but is recognized to make the practical conduct of anesthesia and intubation more difficult. In the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic, some simple alterations were made to the emergency anesthesia standard operating procedure (SOP) of a prehospital critical care service to attempt to maintain high intubation success rates despite the challenges posed by wearing PPE. This retrospective observational cohort study aims to compare first-pass intubation success rates before and after the introduction of PPE and an altered SOP.

Methodology:

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2019 through August 30, 2021. The retrospective analysis used prospectively collected data using prehospital electronic patient records. Anonymized data were held in Excel (v16.54) and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v28). Patient inclusion criteria were those of all ages who received a primary tracheal intubation attempt outside the hospital by critical care teams. March 27, 2020 was the date from which the SOP changed to mandatory COVID-19 SOP including Level 3 PPE – this date is used to separate the cohort groups.

Results:

Data were analyzed from 1,266 patients who received primary intubations by the service. The overall first-pass intubation success rate was 89.7% and the overall intubation success rate was 99.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in first-pass success rate between the two groups: 90.3% in the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546) and 89.3% in the COVID-19 group (n = 720); Pearson chi-square 0.329; P = .566. In addition, there was no statistical difference in overall intubation success rate between groups: 99.8% in the pre-COVID-19 group and 100.0% in the COVID-19 group; Pearson chi-square 1.32; P = .251.

Non-drug-assisted intubations were more than twice as likely to require multiple attempts in both the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546; OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.19-3.90; P = .01) and in the COVID-19 group (n = 720; OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1; P = <.001).

Conclusion:

This study presents simple changes to a prehospital intubation SOP in response to COVID-19 which included mandatory use of PPE, the first intubator always being the most experienced clinician, and routine first use of video laryngoscopy (VL). These changes allowed protection of the clinical team while successfully maintaining the first-pass and overall success rates for prehospital tracheal intubation.

An Evaluation of the Intubrite Laryngoscope in Simulated In-Hospital and Out-of-Hospital Settings by Individuals with No Clinical Experience: A Randomized, Cross-Over, Manikin Study

Introduction: The aim of the study was to compare the Intubrite laryngoscope and the standard Macintosh blade laryngoscope (MCL) used by persons with no clinical experience in simulated hospital and non-hospital conditions on a manikin model. Materials and methods: The study involved 50 students of Medical Rescue. The hospital conditions (intubation height 110 cm—high position) and those occurring at the scene (intubation of a manikin located at floor level-low position) were simulated. The analysis included: duration of intubation, visibility of the laryngeal opening by the Cormack−Lehane scale, the bioelectrical activity of the intubating muscles, comfort and subjective assessment of physical effort by the Borg scale (Borg’s scale of subjective feeling of effort). The statistical analysis was performed with Microsoft Excel and T-student tests for pairs with unequal variables. The statistical importance was set at p < 0.05. Results: The use of an Intubrite laryngoscope significantly reduces the mean endotracheal intubation time compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope in a low position (17.34 s versus 19.04 s, p < 0.05). A higher rate of repeat intubations was observed in a low position for MCL (from 10% to 14%, p < 0.05). The reverse is true for Intubrite laryngoscope intubation (from 8% to 4%, p < 0.05 Please explain what is compared). The Intubrite laryngoscope improved visualization of glottis in the high and the low positions compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope (54% and 50% to 52% and 38%, respectively, p < 0.05). The risk of tooth damage was the same for the Intubrite and the MCL laryngoscopes in a high position (16% and 14%, respectively, p > 0.05), while in the simulated out-of-hospital setting, it was significantly higher for the MCL (22% versus 8%, p < 0.05). The subjective comfort of intubation in both simulated situations was similar according to the Borg scale (p-value, values). The use of the Intubrite laryngoscope was associated with less effort than the MCL in high versus low positions. For MCL, intubation in a high position was associated with lower mean muscle activity than in a low position (+48.24 µV versus +58.25 µV, p-value). For the Intubrite laryngoscope, these values were at similar levels (+52.03 µV and +52.65 µV, p-value). Conclusions: The use of the Intubrite laryngoscope by people with no clinical experience shortens the time of intubation and improves the laryngeal view compared to the standard Macintosh laryngoscope, but it requires similar muscle work in simulated conditions.

Direct vs. Video-Laryngoscopy for Intubation by Paramedics of Simulated COVID-19 Patients under Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Trial

A safe way of securing the airway with an endotracheal tube is one of the priorities of an advanced cardiovascular life support algorithm for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was to compare intubation success rates (ISR) and intubation time (IT) of different laryngoscopes for simulated COVID-19 patients under cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty four active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) and McGrath videolaryngoscope (McGrath) with and without personal protective equipment (PPE). Without PPE, ISRs were 87% and 98% for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.32). ITs were 22.5 s (IQR: 19–26) and 19.5 s (IQR: 17–21) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p = 0.005). With PPE, first-pass ISR were 30% and 89% with MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). The overall success rates were 83% vs. 100% (p = 0.002). Median ITs were 34.0 s (IQR: 29.5–38.5) and 24.8 s (IQR: 21–29) for MAC and McGrath, respectively (p < 0.001). In conclusion, the McGrath videolaryngoscope appears to possess significant advantages over the Macintosh direct laryngoscope when used by paramedics in suspected or confirmed COVID-19 intubation scenarios.

Feasibility of Prehospital Emergency Anesthesia in the Cabin of an AW169 Helicopter Wearing Personal Protective Equipment During Coronavirus Disease 2019

OBJECTIVE

Prehospital emergency anesthesia in the form of rapid sequence intubation (RSI) is a critical intervention delivered by advanced prehospital critical care teams. Our previous simulation study determined the feasibility of in-aircraft RSI. We now examine whether this feasibility is preserved in a simulated setting when clinicians wear personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) for in-aircraft, on-the-ground RSI.

METHODS

Air Ambulance Kent Surrey Sussex is a helicopter emergency medical service that uses an AW169 cabin simulator. Wearing full AGP PPE (eye protection, FFP3 mask, gown, and gloves), 10 doctor-paramedic teams performed RSI in a standard "can intubate, can ventilate" scenario and a "can't intubate, can't oxygenate" (CICO) scenario. Prespecified timings were reported, and participant feedback was sought by questionnaire.

RESULTS

RSI was most commonly performed by direct laryngoscopy and was successfully achieved in all scenarios. The time to completed endotracheal intubation (ETI) was fastest (287 seconds) in the standard scenario and slower (370 seconds, P = .01) in the CICO scenario. The time to ETI was not significantly delayed by wearing PPE in the standard (P = .19) or CICO variant (P = .97). Communication challenges, equipment complications, and PPE difficulties were reported, but ways to mitigate these were also reported.

CONCLUSION

In-aircraft RSI (aircraft on the ground) while wearing PPE for AGPs had no significant impact on the time to successful completion of ETI in a simulated setting. Patient safety is paramount in civilian helicopter emergency medical services, but the adoption of in-aircraft RSI could confer significant patient benefit in terms of prehospital time savings, and further research is warranted.