Intubation Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use of Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy While Wearing HazMat PPE: A Preliminary High-fidelity Mannequin Study

Educational suitability of new channel-type video-laryngoscope with AI-based glottis guidance system for novices wearing personal-protective-equipment

The aim of this study was to determine which of 4 laryngoscopes, including A-LRYNGO, a newly developed channel-type video-laryngoscope with an embedded artificial intelligence-based glottis guidance system, is appropriate for tracheal intubation training in novice medical students wearing personal protective equipment (PPE).Thirty healthy senior medical school student volunteers were recruited. The participants underwent 2 tests with 4 laryngoscopes: Macintosh, McGrath, Pentax Airway-Scope and A-LRYNGO. The first test was conducted just after a lecture without any hands-on workshop. The second test was conducted after a one-on-one hands-on workshop. In each test, we measured the time required for tracheal intubation, intubation success rate, etc, and asked all participants to complete a short questionnaire.The time to completely insert the endotracheal tube with the Macintosh laryngoscope did not change significantly (P = .177), but the remaining outcomes significantly improved after the hands-on workshop (all P < .05). Despite being novice practitioners with no intubation experience and wearing PPE, the, 2 channel-type video-laryngoscopes were associated with good intubation-related performance before the hands-on workshop (all P < .001). A-LRYNGO's artificial intelligence-based glottis guidance system showed 93.1% accuracy, but 20.7% of trials were guided by the vocal folds.To prepare to manage the airway of critically ill patients during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a channel-type video-laryngoscope is appropriate for tracheal intubation training for novice practitioners wearing PPE.

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.

A Practical Guide for Anesthesia Providers on the Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients in the Acute Care Hospital

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has infected millions of individuals and posed unprecedented challenges to health care systems. Acute care hospitals have been forced to expand hospital and intensive care capacity and deal with shortages in personal protective equipment. This guide will review 2 areas where the anesthesiologists will be caring for COVID-19 patients: the operating room and on airway teams. General principles for COVID-19 preparation and hospital procedures will be reviewed to serve as a resource for anesthesia departments to manage COVID-19 or future pandemics.

Barrier Enclosure for Endotracheal Intubation in a Simulated COVID-19 Scenario: A Crossover Study

Introduction

Barrier enclosures have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare providers during intubation, but little is known about their impact on procedure performance. We sought to determine whether a barrier enclosure delays time to successful intubation by experienced airway operators.

Methods

We conducted a crossover simulation study at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants watched a four-minute video, practiced one simulated intubation with a barrier enclosure, and then completed one intubation with and one without the barrier enclosure (randomized to determine order). The primary outcome measure was time from placement of the video laryngoscope at the lips to first delivered ventilation. Secondary outcomes were periprocedural complications and participant responses to a post-study survey.

Results

Proceduralists (n = 50) from emergency medicine and anesthesiology had median intubation times of 23.6 seconds with practice barrier enclosure, 20.5 seconds with barrier enclosure, and 16.7 seconds with no barrier. Intubation with barrier enclosure averaged 4.5 seconds longer (95% confidence interval, 2.7–6.4, p < .001) than without, but was less than the predetermined clinical significance threshold of 10 seconds. Three complications occurred, all during the practice intubation. Barrier enclosure made intubation more challenging according to 48%, but 90% indicated they would consider using it in clinical practice.

Conclusion

Experienced airway operators performed intubation using a barrier enclosure with minimal increased time to procedure completion in this uncomplicated airway model. Given potential to reduce droplet spread, use of a barrier enclosure may be an acceptable adjunct to endotracheal intubation for those familiar with its use.

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 Efficiency and Perceived Ease of Use of Video Laryngoscopy vs Direct Laryngoscopy While Wearing HazMat PPE: A Preliminary High-fidelity Mannequin Study

INTRODUCTION

Management of contaminated patients in the decontamination corridor requires the use of hazardous material (HazMat) personal protective equipment (PPE). Previous studies have demonstrated that HazMat PPE may increase the difficulty of airway management. This study compared the efficiency of video laryngoscopy (VL) with traditional direct laryngoscopy (DL) during endotracheal intubation (ETI) while wearing HazMat PPE.

METHODS

Post-graduate year (PGY) 1-3 Emergency Medicine residents were randomized to VL or DL while wearing encapsulating PPE. Video laryngoscopy was performed using the GlideScope Cobalt AVL video laryngoscope. The primary outcome measure was time to successful ETI in a high-fidelity simulation mannequin. Three time points were utilized in the analysis: Time 0 (blade at lips), Time 1 (blade removed from lips after endotracheal tube placement), and Time 2 (bag valve mask [BVM] attached to endotracheal tube). Secondary outcome measures were perceived ease of use and feasibility of VL and DL ETI modalities.

RESULTS

Twenty-one of 23 (91.3%) eligible residents participated. Mean time to ETI was 10.0 seconds (SD=5.3 seconds) in the DL group and 7.8 seconds (SD=3.0 seconds) in the VL group (P=.081). Mean times from blade insertion until BVM attachment were 17.4 seconds (SD=6.0 seconds) and 15.6 seconds (SD=4.6 seconds), respectively (P=.30). There were no unsuccessful intubation attempts. Seventeen out of 20 participants (85.0%) perceived VL to be easier to use when performing ETI in PPE. Twelve out of 20 participants (60%) perceived DL to be more feasible in an actual HazMat scenario.

CONCLUSION

The time to successful ETI was not significantly different between VL and DL. Video laryngoscopy had a greater perceived ease of use, but DL was perceived to be more feasible for use in actual HazMat situations. These findings suggest that both DL and VL are reasonable modalities for use in HazMat situations, and the choice of modality could be based on the clinical situation and provider experience.