Does position of the patient adversely affect successful intubation whilst wearing CBRN-PPE?

Orotracheal tube versus supraglottic devices in biological, chemical and radiological disasters: meta-analysis in manikin-based studies

OBJECTIVE

To compare the mean time of orotracheal intubation and insertion of supraglottic airway devices, considering healthcare providers wearing waterproof overall, gloves, boots, eye protection and mask at the Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear context in simulation setting.

METHODS

Six databases were searched. The selected studies were put in a pool of results using a random-effects meta-analysis, with standardized mean differences and calculation of 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Nine observational studies were included. Regarding reducing time to provide ventilatory support, subgroup analyses were made. The emergency setting subgroup: -12.97 [-16.11; -9.83]; I2 = 64%. The surgery setting subgroup: -14.96 [-18.65; -11.27]; I2 = 75%. Another analysis was made by reproductive methodology subgroups. Ophir's subgroup: -15.70 [-17.04; -14.37]; I2 = 0%. All meta-analyses had orotracheal tube as comparator.

CONCLUSION

Moderate level of evidence was in favor of insertion of supraglottic devices because of fast application.

Systematic review and meta-analysis comparing ventilatory support in chemical, biological and radiological emergencies

Objective:

to compare the mean development time of the techniques of direct laryngoscopy and insertion of supraglottic devices; and to evaluate the success rate in the first attempt of these techniques, considering health professionals wearing specific personal protective equipment (waterproof overalls; gloves; boots; eye protection; mask).

Method:

meta-analysis with studies from LILACS, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science. The keywords were the following: personal protective equipment; airway management; intubation; laryngeal masks.

Results:

in the “reduction of the time of the procedures” outcome, the general analysis of the supraglottic devices in comparison with the orotracheal tube initially presented high heterogeneity of the data (I²= 97%). Subgroup analysis had an impact on reducing heterogeneity among the data. The “laryngeal mask as a guide for orotracheal intubation” subgroup showed moderate heterogeneity (I²= 74%). The “2^ndgeneration supraglottic devices” subgroup showed homogeneity (I²= 0%). All the meta-analyses favored supraglottic devices. In the “success in the first attempt” outcome, moderate homogeneity was found (I²= 52%), showing a higher proportion of correct answers for supraglottic devices.

Conclusion:

in the context of chemical, biological or radiological disaster, the insertion of the supraglottic device proved to be faster and more likely to be successful by health professionals. PROSPERO record (CRD42019136139).

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on the Performance of Emergency Pediatric Procedures by Prehospital Providers

Background:

Personal protective equipment (PPE) is worn by prehospital providers (PHPs) for protection from hazardous exposures. Evidence regarding the ability of PHPs to perform resuscitation procedures has been described in adult but not pediatric models. This study examined the effects of PPE on the ability of PHPs to perform resuscitation procedures on pediatric patients.

Methods:

This prospective study was conducted at a US simulation center. Paramedics wore normal attire at the baseline session and donned full Level B PPE for the second session. During each session, they performed timed sets of psychomotor tasks simulating clinical care of a critically ill pediatric patient. The difference in time to completion between baseline and PPE sessions per task was examined using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.

Results:

A total of 50 paramedics completed both sessions. Median times for task completion at the PPE sessions increased significantly from baseline for several procedures: tracheal intubation (+4.5 s; P = 0.01), automated external defibrillator (AED) placement (+9.5 s; P = 0.01), intraosseous line insertion (+7 s; P < 0.0001), tourniquet (+8.5 s; P < 0.0001), intramuscular injection (+21-23 s, P < 0.0001), and pulse oximetry (+4 s; P < 0.0001). There was no significant increase in completion time for bag-mask ventilation or autoinjector use.

Conclusions:

PPE did not have a significant impact on PHPs performing critical tasks while caring for a pediatric patient with a highly infectious or chemical exposure. This information may guide PHPs faced with the situation of resuscitating children while wearing Level B PPE.

Impact of Clinician Personal Protective Equipment on Medical Device Use During Public Health Emergency: A Review

The aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the impact of personal protective equipment (PPE) on medical device use during public health emergency responses. We conducted a systematic literature search of peer-reviewed journals in PubMed, Web of Science, and EBSCO databases. Twenty-nine of 92 articles published between 1984 and 2015 met the inclusion criteria for the review. Although many medical device use impacts were reported, they predominantly fell into 3 categories: airway management, drug administration, and diagnostics and monitoring. Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN)-PPE increased completion times for emergency clinical procedures by as much as 130% and first attempt failure rates by 35% (anesthetist) versus 55% (non-anesthetist). Effects of CBRN-PPE use depend on device, CBRN-PPE level, and clinician experience and training. Continuous clinical training of responders in CBRN-PPE and device modifications can improve safety and effectiveness of medical device use during public health emergency response.

Comparison of Miller and Airtraq laryngoscopes for orotracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN protective equipment during infant resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of orotracheal intubation with the Miller laryngoscope compared with the Airtraq laryngoscope by emergency and pediatric physicians wearing CBRN-PPE type III on infant manikins with conventional airway. We hypothesized that in this situation, the orotracheal intubation with the Airtraq laryngoscope would be faster and more effective than with the Miller laryngoscope.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, crossover, single-center study who recruited emergency department physicians on a voluntary basis. Each physician performed a total of 20 intubation trials while in CBRN-PPE with the two intubation techniques, Miller and Airtraq. Intubations by each airway device were tested over ten consecutive runs. The order of use of one or the other devices was randomized with a ratio of 1:1. The primary endpoint was overall orotracheal intubation success.

RESULTS

Fifty-five emergency and pediatric physicians were assessed for eligibility. Forty-one physicians were included in this study and 820 orotracheal intubation attempts were performed. The orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller (99% vs. 92%; p-adjusted <.001). The orotracheal intubation and glottis visualization times decreased with the number of attempts (p <.001). The median orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope (15 s vs. 20 s; p-adjusted <.001). The median glottis visualization time with the Airtraq laryngoscope and with the Miller laryngoscope were not different (6.0 s vs. 7.5 s; p-adjusted =.237). Thirty-four (83 %) physicians preferred the Airtraq laryngoscope versus 6 (15 %) for the Miller (p-adjusted <.001).

DISCUSSION

For tracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN-PPE during infant resuscitation simulation, we showed that the orotracheal intubation success rate with the Airtraq laryngoscope was higher than with the Miller laryngoscope and that orotracheal intubation time with the Airtraq laryngoscope was lower than with the Miller laryngoscope.

CONCLUSIONS

It seems useful to train the physicians in emergency departments in the use of pediatric Airtraq and for the management of CBRN risks.

Intubation performance using different laryngoscopes while wearing chemical protective equipment: a manikin study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare visualisation of the vocal cords and performance of intubation by anaesthetists using four different laryngoscopes while wearing full chemical protective equipment.

SETTING

Medical simulation center of a university hospital, department of anaesthesiology.

PARTICIPANTS

42 anaesthetists (15 females and 27 males) completed the trial. The participants were grouped according to their professional education as anaesthesiology residents with experience of <2 years or <5 years, or as anaesthesiology specialists with experience of >5 years.

INTERVENTIONS

In a manikin scenario, participants performed endotracheal intubations with four different direct and indirect laryngoscopes (Macintosh (MAC), Airtraq (ATQ), Glidescope (GLS) and AP Advance (APA)), while wearing chemical protective gear, including a body suit, rubber gloves, a fire helmet and breathing apparatus.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

With respect to the manikin, setting time to complete 'endotracheal intubation' was defined as primary end point. Glottis visualisation (according to the Cormack-Lehane score (CLS) and impairments caused by the protective equipment, were defined as secondary outcome measures.

RESULTS

The times to tracheal intubation were calculated using the MAC (31.4 s; 95% CI 26.6 to 36.8), ATQ (37.1 s; 95% CI 28.3 to 45.9), GLS (35.4 s; 95% CI 28.7 to 42.1) and APA (23.6 s; 95% CI 19.1 to 28.1), respectively. Intubation with the APA was significantly faster than with all the other devices examined among the total study population (p<0.05). A significant improvement in visualisation of the vocal cords was reported for the APA compared with the GLS.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the restrictions caused by the equipment, the anaesthetists intubated the manikin successfully within adequate time. The APA outperformed the other devices in the time to intubation, and it has been evaluated as an easily manageable device for anaesthetists with varying degrees of experience (low to high), providing good visualisation in scenarios that require the use of chemical protective equipment.

Utility of the Pentax-AWS in performing tracheal intubation while wearing chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear personal protective equipment: a randomised crossover trial using a manikin

INTRODUCTION

Following a chemical, biological, radiation and nuclear (CBRN) incident, prompt establishment of an advanced airway is required for patients with respiratory failure within the warm zone, while wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). Previous studies reported that intubation attempts were prolonged, and incidence of esophageal intubation was increased with conventional Macintosh laryngoscope (McL), while wearing CBRN-PPE. Pentax-AWS (AWS), a recently introduced portable video laryngoscope, was compared with the McL to test its utility for tracheal intubation while wearing CBRN-PPE.

METHODS

31 participants performed unsuited and suited intubations on an advanced life support simulator. The sequence of intubating devices and PPE wearing were randomised. Time to complete tracheal intubation (primary end point), time to see the vocal cords, overall success rate, percentage of glottic opening, dental compression and ease of intubation were measured.

RESULTS

Suited intubations required significantly longer time to complete intubation than unsuited intubations, in both McL and AWS (22.2 vs 26.4 s, 14.2 vs 18.2 s, respectively). However, suited AWS intubations required shorter time to complete tracheal intubation than unsuited McL intubations (18.2 vs 22.2 s). In secondary outcomes, moreover, suited intubations using the AWS compared favourably with unsuited intubations using the McL.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the CBRN-PPE adversely affected time required to complete tracheal intubation with the AWS, suited intubations using the AWS were even superior to unsuited intubations using the McL. The AWS should be a promising device to perform tracheal intubation while wearing the CBRN-PPE.

Insertion of six different supraglottic airway devices whilst wearing chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear-personal protective equipment: a manikin study

Six different supraglottic airway devices: Combitube™, laryngeal mask airway, intubating laryngeal mask airway (Fastrach™), i-gel™, Laryngeal Tube™ and Pro-Seal™ laryngeal mask airway were assessed by 58 paramedic students for speed and ease of insertion in a manikin, whilst wearing either chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear-personal protective equipment (CBRN-PPE) or a standard uniform. All devices took significantly longer to insert when wearing CBRN-PPE compared with standard uniform (p < 0.001). In standard uniform, insertion time was shorter than 45 s in 90% of attempts for all devices except the Combitube, for which 90% of attempts were completed by 53 s. Whilst wearing CBRN-PPE the i-gel was the fastest device to insert with a mean (SD (95% CI)) insertion time of 19 (8 (17-21))s, p < 0.001, with the Combitube the slowest with mean (65 (23 (59-71))s. Wearing of CBRN-PPE has a negative impact on supraglottic airway insertion time.

What is the optimal position of an intubator wearing CBRN-PPE when intubating on the floor: a manikin study

INTRODUCTION

Prompt airway management following a CBRN incident is linked to improved patient survival. However, responding rescuers will have to wear CBRN-PPE and treat patients positioned on the floor which will adversely impact on intubation skill performance.

METHODS

48 final year paramedic students intubated manikin's positions in 4 different positions; on an ambulance trolley (60 cm of the floor), lying prone, kneeling and sitting. Each skill was performed twice once wearing CBRN-PPE and once in normal clothes. Intubating order was randomised.

RESULTS

Intubation performance when wearing standard clothing was similar in all four positions but this was not the case when intubation was performed while wearing CBRN-PPE. CBRN-PPE had a negative impact on intubation performance regardless of the position of the intubator. Intubation on the trolley while wearing CBRN-PPE was completed in 100% of attempts within 60s compared with 79.2% for kneeling, 75% for sitting and 43.8% for laying. After 120 s nearly 20% of intubation attempts using the kneeling and sitting position and nearly 40% of attempts with the intubator lying on the floor were still not completed. Intubation on an ambulance trolley, while wearing CBRN-PPE, was always successful compared with sitting (88.8%), kneeling (81.2%) and laying (62.5%).

CONCLUSION

This manikin-based study serves to reaffirm that CBRN-PPE has an adverse impact on intubation performance as well as identifying the negative impact of patient position on the performance of intubation within a CBRN environment. Elevating the patient off the floor, prior to intubation, could improve intubation success when wearing CBRN-PPE as well as potentially improving safety of the intubator. In the immediate phase of a CBRN incident, intubation attempts should be delayed until optimal intubating conditions are available or at least until the patient is removed from the floor. Use of and intermediate airway devices should be considered as a 'stop gap'.