Controversies in airway management of COVID-19 patients: updated information and international expert consensus recommendations

Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management. Part I

The Airway Management section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), and the Spanish Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guide for the comprehensive management of difficult airway in adult patients. Its principles are focused on the human factors, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations, and optimization in the progression of strategies application to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to enhance safety and the quality of care. The document provides evidence-based recommendations, theoretical-educational tools, and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to airway management in the fields of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies, and prehospital medicine. For this purpose, an extensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA-R guidelines and was analyzed using the GRADE methodology. Recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology. Recommendations for sections with low-quality evidence were based on expert opinion through consensus reached via a Delphi questionnaire.

Exhaled patient derived aerosol dispersion during awake tracheal intubation with concurrent high flow nasal therapy

Awake Tracheal Intubation (ATI) can be performed in cases where there is potential for difficult airway management. It is considered an aerosol generating procedure and is a source of concern to healthcare workers due to the risk of transmission of airborne viral infections, such as SARS-CoV-2. At present, there is a lack of data on the quantities, size distributions and spread of aerosol particles generated during such procedures. This was a volunteer observational study which took place in an operating room of a university teaching hospital. Optical particle sizers were used to provide real time aerosol characterisation during a simulated ATI performed with concurrent high-flow nasal oxygen therapy. The particle sizers were positioned at locations that represented the different locations of clinical staff in an operating room during an ATI. The greatest concentration of patient derived aerosol particles was within 0.5-1.0 m of the subject and along their midline, 2242 #/cm3. As the distance, both radial and longitudinal, from the subject increased, the concentration decreased towards ambient levels, 36.9 ± 5.1 #/cm3. Patient derived aerosol particles < 5 µm in diameter remained entrained in the exhaled aerosol plume and fell to the floor or onto the subject. Patient derived particles > 5 µm in diameter broke away from the exhaled plume and spread radially throughout the operating room. Irrespective of distance and ventilation status, full airborne protective equipment should be worn by all staff when ATI is being performed on patients with suspected viral respiratory infections.

Efficacy and adverse events profile of videolaryngoscopy in critically ill patients: subanalysis of the INTUBE study

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation is a high-risk procedure in the critically ill, with increased intubation failure rates and a high risk of other adverse events. Videolaryngoscopy might improve intubation outcomes in this population, but evidence remains conflicting, and its impact on adverse event rates is debated.

METHODS

This is a subanalysis of a large international prospective cohort of critically ill patients (INTUBE Study) performed from 1 October 2018 to 31 July 2019 and involving 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents. Our primary aim was to determine the first-pass intubation success rates of videolaryngoscopy. Secondary aims were characterising (a) videolaryngoscopy use in the critically ill patient population and (b) the incidence of severe adverse effects compared with direct laryngoscopy.

RESULTS

Of 2916 patients, videolaryngoscopy was used in 500 patients (17.2%) and direct laryngoscopy in 2416 (82.8%). First-pass intubation success was higher with videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy (84% vs 79%, P=0.02). Patients undergoing videolaryngoscopy had a higher frequency of difficult airway predictors (60% vs 40%, P<0.001). In adjusted analyses, videolaryngoscopy increased the probability of first-pass intubation success, with an OR of 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.87). Videolaryngoscopy was not significantly associated with risk of major adverse events (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.95-1.62) or cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients, videolaryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass intubation success rates, despite being used in a population at higher risk of difficult airway management. Videolaryngoscopy was not associated with overall risk of major adverse events.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03616054.

ETView SL versus Macintosh Direct Laryngoscope for Endotracheal Intubation Amid Simulated COVID-19 Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Crossover Study

Airway management procedures, such as endotracheal intubation (ETI), pose a significant risk of aerosol generation, requiring robust personal protective equipment (PPE) against aerosol-generating procedures (AGP). This study aimed to assess the impact of PPE-AGP on intubation success rates, time to intubation, and glottic visualization using ETView and a standard Macintosh laryngoscope (MAC). A total of 52 physicians participated in this prospective, observational, randomized crossover study conducted in a medical simulation setting. Participants included COVID-19 patients with cardiac arrest scenarios with and without PPE-AGP who were intubated with ETView and MAC. During intubation without PPE-AGP, ETView showed a similar first-pass success rate (FPS) but had a shorter intubation time and better glottal hydration compared to MAC. In scenario B (with PPE-AGP), ETView outperformed MAC in FPS, initiation time, and glottic visualization. The use of PPE-AGP had little impact on ETView's performance. However, it negatively affected the Macintosh laryngoscope, reducing FPS and glottic visibility. Participants found intubation with ETView easier in both scenarios. In conclusion, as compared to the Macintosh laryngoscope, ETView demonstrated higher performance under the circumstances of the simulation, especially when PPE-AGP was used.

Comparison of Three Video Laryngoscopes and Direct Laryngoscopy for Emergency Endotracheal Intubation While Wearing PPE-AGP: A Randomized, Crossover, Simulation Trial

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated changes in the safety protocols of endotracheal intubation at every level of care. This study aimed to compare the first-pass success rates (FPS) and intubation times (IT) of three video laryngoscopes (VL) and direct laryngoscopy (DL) for simulated COVID-19 patient emergency intubation (EI).

METHODS

The study was a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty-three active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with the I-viewTM VL, UESCOPE® VL, ProVu® VL and Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) wearing personal protective equipment for aerosol-generating procedures (PPE-AGP) on a manikin with normal airway conditions.

RESULTS

The longest IT was noted when the UESCOPE® (29.4 s) and ProVu® (27.7 s) VL were used. The median IT for I-view was 17.4 s and for MAC DL 17.9 s. The FPS rates were 88.6%, 81.1%, 83.0% and 84.9%, respectively, for I-view, ProVu®, UESCOPE® and MAC DL. The difficulty of EI attempts showed a statistically significant difference between UESCOPE® and ProVu®.

CONCLUSIONS

The intubation times performed by paramedics in PPE-AGP using UESCOPE® and ProVu® were significantly longer than those with the I-view and Macintosh laryngoscopes. The use of VL by prehospital providers in PPE did not result in more effective EI than the use of a Macintosh laryngoscope.

Transitioning from Direct to Video Laryngoscopy during the COVID-19 Pandemic Was Associated with a Higher Endotracheal Intubation Success Rate

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of transitioning from direct laryngoscopy (DL) to video laryngoscopy (VL) on endotracheal intubation success overall and with enhanced precautions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We examined electronic transport records from Mayo Clinic Ambulance Service, a large advanced life support (ALS) provider serving rural, suburban, and urban areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin, USA. We determined the success of intubation attempts when using DL (March 10, 2018 to December 19, 2019), VL (December 20, 2019 to September 29, 2021), and VL with an enhanced COVID-19 guideline that restricted intubation to one attempt, performed by the most experienced clinician, who wore enhanced personal protective equipment (April 1 to December 18, 2020). Success rates at first attempt and after any attempt were assessed for association with type of laryngoscopy (VL vs DL) after adjusting for patient age group, patient weight, use of enhanced COVID-19 guideline, medical vs trauma patient, and ALS vs critical care clinician. A secondary analysis further adjusted for degree of glottic visualization.

RESULTS

We identified 895 intubation attempts using DL and 893 intubation attempts using VL, which included 382 VL intubation attempts using the enhanced COVID-19 guideline. Success on first intubation attempt was 69.2% for encounters with DL, 82.9% overall with VL, and 83.2% with VL and enhanced COVID-19 protocols (DL vs overall VL: p < 0.001; COVID-19 vs non-COVID VL: p = 0.86). In multivariable analysis, use of VL was associate with higher odds of successful intubation on first attempt (odds ratio, 2.28; 95%CI, 1.73-3.01; p < 0.001) and on any attempt (odds ratio, 2.16; 95%CI, 1.58-2.96; p < 0.001) compared with DL. Inclusion of glottic visualization in the model resulted in a nonsignificant association between laryngoscopy type and successful first intubation (p = 0.41) and a significant association with the degree of glottic visualization (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

VL is designed to improve glottic visualization. The use of VL by a large, U.S. multistate ALS ambulance service was associated with increased odds of successful first-pass and overall attempted intubation, which was mediated by better visualization of the glottis. COVID-19 protocols were not associated with success rates.

Human Factors and Airway Management in COVID-19 Patients: The Perfect Storm?

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic heavily impacted healthcare workers, increasing their physical and psychological workload. Specifically, COVID-19 patients' airway management is definitely a challenging task regarding both severe and acute respiratory failure and the risk of contagion while performing aerosol-generating procedures. The category of anesthesiologists and intensivists, the main actors of airway management, showed a poor psychological well-being and a high stress and burnout risk. Identifying and better defining the specific main SARS-CoV-2-related stressors can help them deal with and effectively plan a strategy to manage these patients in a more confident and safer way. In this review, we therefore try to analyze the relevance of human factors and non-technical skills when approaching COVID-19 patients. Lessons from the past, such as National Audit Project 4 recommendations, have taught us that safe airway management should be based on preoperative assessment, the planning of an adequate strategy, the optimization of setting and resources and the rigorous evaluation of the scenario. Despite, or thanks to, the critical issues and difficulties, the "take home lesson" that we can translate from SARS-CoV-2 to every airway management is that there can be no more room for improvisation and that creating teamwork must become a priority.

Guidelines and evidence-based recommendations in anaesthesia: where do we stand?

Clinical practice guidelines are increasingly important to guide clinical care. However, they can vary widely in quality, and many recommendations are based on low-level evidence. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for new flexible formats for rigorously developed guidelines. Future guideline development should be standardised, graded, registered, and updated to ensure that they are 'living' works in progress.

Tracheal intubation in the critically ill patient

Tracheal intubation is among the most commonly performed and high-risk procedures in critical care. Indeed, 45% of patients undergoing intubation experience at least one major peri-intubation adverse event, with cardiovascular instability being the most common event reported in 43%, followed by severe hypoxemia in 9% and cardiac arrest in 3% of cases. These peri-intubation adverse events may expose patients to a higher risk of 28-day mortality, and they are more frequently observed with an increasing number of attempts to secure the airway. The higher risk of peri-intubation complications in critically ill patients, compared with the anaesthesia setting, is the consequence of their deranged physiology (e.g. underlying respiratory failure, shock and/or acidosis) and, in this regard, airway management in critical care has been defined as "physiologically difficult". In recent years, several randomised studies have investigated the most effective preoxy-genation strategies, and evidence for the use of positive pressure ventilation in moderate-to-severe hypoxemic patients is established. On the other hand, evidence on interventions to mitigate haemodynamic collapse after intubation has been elusive. Airway management in COVID-19 patients is even more challenging because of the additional risk of infection for healthcare workers, which has influenced clinical choices in this patient group. The aim of this review is to provide an update of the evidence for intubation in critically ill patients with a focus on understanding peri-intubation risks and evaluating interventions to prevent or mitigate adverse events.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

High-Flow Nasal Oxygenation and Its Applicability in COVID Patients

High-flow nasal oxygenation (HFNO) is a type of oxygen therapy that provides humidified and heated oxygen through a nasal cannula at much higher flow rates than standard oxygen therapy, while also allowing control over the fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2). Compared to standard oxygen therapy, it is much more comfortable for the patient and seems to alleviate most of the problems associated with standard oxygen therapy, such as dry nose, dry throat and nasal pain. It also provides a variety of benefits that can reduce the incidence of escalating treatment and initiating mechanical ventilation in COVID patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF). This article provides an overview of HFNO and its current applications in COVID patients during the pandemic.

A descriptive study of the surge response and outcomes of ICU patients with COVID-19 during first wave in Nordic countries

Background

We sought to provide a description of surge response strategies and characteristics, clinical management and outcomes of patients with severe COVID‐19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the first wave of the pandemic in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

Methods

Representatives from the national ICU registries for each of the five countries provided clinical data and a description of the strategies to allocate ICU resources and increase the ICU capacity during the pandemic. All adult patients admitted to the ICU for COVID‐19 disease during the first wave of COVID‐19 were included. The clinical characteristics, ICU management and outcomes of individual countries were described with descriptive statistics.

Results

Most countries more than doubled their ICU capacity during the pandemic. For patients positive for SARS‐CoV‐2, the ratio of requiring ICU admission for COVID‐19 varied substantially (1.6%–6.7%). Apart from age (proportion of patients aged 65 years or over between 29% and 62%), baseline characteristics, chronic comorbidity burden and acute presentations of COVID‐19 disease were similar among the five countries. While utilization of invasive mechanical ventilation was high (59%–85%) in all countries, the proportion of patients receiving renal replacement therapy (7%–26%) and various experimental therapies for COVID‐19 disease varied substantially (e.g. use of hydroxychloroquine 0%–85%). Crude ICU mortality ranged from 11% to 33%.

Conclusion

There was substantial variability in the critical care response in Nordic ICUs to the first wave of COVID‐19 pandemic, including usage of experimental medications. While ICU mortality was low in all countries, the observed variability warrants further attention.

Adapted full-face snorkel masks as an alternative for COVID-19 personal protection during aerosol generating procedures in South Africa: A multi-centre, non-blinded in-situ simulation study

INTRODUCTION

SARS-CoV-2 has resulted in increased worldwide demand for personal protective equipment (PPE). With pressure from ongoing epidemic and endemic episodes, we assessed an adapted snorkel mask that provides full-face protection for healthcare workers (HCWs), particularly during aerosol-generating procedures. These masks have a custom-made adaptor which allows the fitment of standard medical respiratory filters. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fit, seal and clinical usability of these masks.

METHODS

This multicentre, non-blinded in-situ simulation study recruited fifty-two HCWs to don and doff the adapted snorkel mask. Negative pressure seal checks and a qualitative fit test were performed. The HCWs completed intubation and extubation of a manikin in a university skills training laboratory, followed by a web-based questionnaire on the clinical usability of the masks.

RESULTS

Whilst fit and usability data were generally satisfactory, two of the 52 participants (3.8%) felt that the mask did not span the correct distance from the nose to the chin, and 3 of 34 participants (8.8%) who underwent qualitative testing with a Bitrex test failed. The majority of users reported no fogging, humidity or irritation. It was reportedly easy to speak while wearing the mask, although some participants perceived that they were not always understood. Twenty-one participants (40%) experienced a subjective physiological effect from wearing the mask; most commonly a sensation of shortness of breath.

DISCUSSION

A fit-tested modified full-face snorkel mask may offer benefit as a substitute for N95 respirators and face shields. It is, however, important to properly select the correct mask based on size, fit testing, quality of the three-dimensional (3D) printed parts and respiratory filter to be used. Additionally, HCWs should be trained in the use of the mask, and each mask should be used by a single HCW and not shared.

Influence of respiratory protective equipment on simulated advanced airway skills by specialist tracheal intubation teams during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of respiratory protective equipment for clinicians performing airway management.

Aim

To evaluate the impact of powered air-purifying respirators, full-face air-purifying respirators and filtering facepieces on specially trained anaesthesiologists performing difficult airway procedures.

Methods

All our COVID-19 intubation team members carried out various difficult intubation drills: unprotected, wearing a full-face respirator, a filtering facepiece or a powered respirator. Airway management times and wearer comfort were evaluated and analysed.

Results

Total mean (SD) intubation times did not show significant differences between the control, the powered, the full-face respirator and the filtering facepiece groups: Airtraq 6.1 (4.4) vs. 5.4 (3.1) vs. 6.1 (5.6) vs. 7.7 (7.6) s; videolaryngoscopy 11.4 (9.0) vs. 7.7 (4.3) vs. 9.8 (8.4) vs. 12.7 (9.8) s; fibreoptic intubation 16.6 (7.8) vs.13.8 (6.7) vs. 13.6 (8.1) vs. 16.9 (9.2) s; and standard endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy 8.1 (3.5) vs. 6.5 (5.6) vs. 6.2 (4.2) vs. 8.0 (4.4) s, respectively. Use of the Airtraq achieved the shortest intubation times. Anaesthesiologists rated temperature and vision significantly better in the powered respirator group.

Conclusions

Advanced airway management remains unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used if performed by a specially trained, designated team. We conclude that when advanced airway skills are performed by a designated, specially trained team, airway management times remain unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used.

Thoracic Anesthesia during the COVID-19 Pandemic: 2021 Updated Recommendations by the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EACTAIC) Thoracic Subspecialty Committee

The novel coronavirus pandemic has radically changed the landscape of normal surgical practice. Lifesaving cancer surgery, however, remains a clinical priority, and there is an increasing need to fully define the optimal oncologic management of patients with varying stages of lung cancer, allowing prioritization of which thoracic procedures should be performed in the current era. Healthcare providers and managers should not ignore the risk of a bimodal peak of mortality in patients with lung cancer; an imminent spike due to mortality from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, and a secondary peak reflecting an excess of cancer-related mortality among patients whose treatments were deemed less urgent, delayed, or cancelled.

The European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Thoracic Anesthesia Subspecialty group has considered these challenges and developed an updated set of expert recommendations concerning the infectious period, timing of surgery, vaccination, preoperative screening and evaluation, airway management, and ventilation of thoracic surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Organizational aspects of pediatric anesthesia and surgery between two waves of Covid-19

Background

The initial wave of the Covid‐19 pandemic has hit Italy, and Lombardy in particular, with violence, forcing to reshape all hospitals' activities; this happened even in pediatric hospitals, although the young population seemed initially spared from the disease. “Vittore Buzzi” Children's Hospital, which is a pediatric/maternal hospital located in Milan (Lombardy Region), had to stop elective procedures—with the exception of urgent/emergent ones—between February and May 2020 to leave space and resources to adults' care. We describe the challenges of reshaping the hospital's identity and structure, and restarting pediatric surgery and anesthesia, from May on, in the most hit area of the world, with the purpose to avoid and contain infections. Both patients and caregivers admitted to hospital have been tested for Sars‐CoV‐2 in every case.

Methods

Observational cohort study via review of clinical charts of patients undergoing surgery between 16th May and 30th September 2020, together with SARS‐CoV ‐2 RT‐PCR testing outcomes, and comparison to same period surgeries in 2019.

Results

An increase of approximately 70% in pediatric surgeries (OR 1.68 [1.33‐2.13], P < .001) and a higher increase in the number of surgeries were reported (OR 1.75 (1.43‐2.15), P < .001). Considering only urgent procedures, a significant difference in the distribution of the type of surgery was observed (Chi‐squared P‐value < .001). Sars‐CoV‐2‐positive patients have been 0.8% of total number; 14% of these was discovered through caregiver's positivity.

Conclusion

We describe our pathway for safe pediatric surgery and anesthesia and the importance of testing both patient and caregiver.

Airway management in the adult patient with COVID-19: High flow nasal oxygen or not? A summary of evidence and local expert opinion

The use of high flow nasal oxygen in the care of COVID-19-positive adult patients remains an area of contention. Early guidelines have discouraged the use of high flow nasal oxygen therapy in this setting due to the risk of viral spread to healthcare workers. However, there is the need to balance the relative risks of increased aerosol generation and virus transmission to healthcare workers against the role high flow nasal oxygen has in reducing hypoxaemia when managing the airway in high-risk patients during intubation or sedation procedures. The authors of this article undertook a narrative review to present results from several recent papers. Surrogate outcome studies suggest that the risk of high flow nasal oxygen in dispersing aerosol-sized particles is probably not as great as first perceived. Smoke laser-visualisation experiments and particle counter studies suggest that the generation and dispersion of bio-aerosols via high flow nasal oxygen with flow rates up to 60 l/min is similar to standard oxygen therapies. The risk appears to be similar to oxygen supplementation via a Hudson mask at 15 l/min and significantly less than low flow nasal prong oxygen 1-5 l/min, nasal continuous positive airway pressure with ill-fitting masks, bilevel positive airway pressure, or from a coughing patient. However, given the limited safety data, we recommend a cautious approach. For intubation in the COVID-positive or suspected COVID-positive patient we support the use of high flow nasal oxygen to extend time to desaturation in the at-risk groups, which include the morbidly obese, those with predicted difficult airways and patients with significant hypoxaemia, ensuring well-fitted high flow nasal oxygen prongs with staff wearing full personal protective equipment. For sedation cases, we support the use of high flow nasal oxygen when there is an elevated risk of hypoxaemia (e.g. bariatric endoscopy or prone-positioned procedures), but recommend securing the airway with a cuffed endotracheal tube for the longer duration procedures when theatre staff remain in close proximity to the upper airway, or considering the use of a surgical mask to reduce the risk of exhaled particle dispersion.

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice.

METHODS

Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable).

RESULTS

Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment.

CONCLUSION

Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice.

METHODS

Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ²) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable).

RESULTS

Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment.

CONCLUSION

Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Difficult Airway Management in Adult COVID-19 Patients: Statement by the Society of Airway Management

The COVID-19 disease, caused by Coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, often results in severe hypoxemia requiring airway management. Because SARS CoV-2 virus is spread via respiratory droplets, bag-mask ventilation, intubation, and extubation may place health care workers (HCW) at risk. While existing recommendations address airway management in patients with COVID-19, no guidance exists specifically for difficult airway management. Some strategies normally recommended for difficult airway management may not be ideal in the setting of COVID-19 infection. To address this issue the Society for Airway Management (SAM) created a task force to review existing literature and current Practice Guidelines for management of the difficult airway by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. SAM task force created recommendations for management of known or suspected difficult airway in the setting of known or suspected COVID-19 infection. The goal of the task force was to optimize successful airway management while minimizing exposure risk. Each member conducted a literature review on specific clinical practice section utilizing standard search engines (PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar). Existing recommendations and evidence for difficult airway management in COVID-19 context were developed. Each specific recommendation was discussed among task force members and modified until unanimously approved by all task force members. Elements of AGREE Reporting Checklist for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines were utilized to develop this statement. Airway management in the COVID-19 patient increases HCW exposure risk. and difficult airway management often takes longer, may involve multiple procedures with aerosolization potential, strict adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols is mandatory to reduce risk to providers. When patient's airway risk assessment suggests awake tracheal intubation is an appropriate choice of technique, procedures that may cause increased aerosolization of secretions should be avoided. Optimal preoxygenation before induction with tight seal facemask may be performed to reduce risk of hypoxemia. Unless the patient is experiencing oxygen desaturation, positive pressure bag-mask ventilation after induction may be avoided to reduce aerosolization. For optimal intubating conditions, patients should be anesthetized with full muscle relaxation. Videolaryngoscopy is recommended as first-line strategy for airway management. If emergent invasive airway access is indicated, we recommend a surgical technique such as scalpel-bougie-tube, rather than an aerosolizing generating procedure, such as transtracheal jet ventilation. This statement represents recommendations by SAM task force for the difficult airway management of adults with COVID-19 with the goal to optimize successful airway management while minimizing the risk of clinician exposure.