Search

Background: After failed endotracheal intubation, using direct laryngoscopy, rescued using a supraglottic airway device, the choice of subsequent method to secure a definitive airway is not clearly determined. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the time to intubation using a fibre-optic airway scope, to guide an endotracheal tube through the supraglottic airway device, with a more conventional approach using a hyperangulated video laryngoscope. Methods: A single-centre randomised controlled trial was undertaken. The population studied were emergency physicians working in an adult major trauma centre. The intervention was intubation through a supraglottic airway device guided by a fibre-optic airway scope. The comparison was intubation using a hyperangulated video laryngoscope. The primary outcome was time to intubation. The trial was registered with ANZCTR.org.au (ACTRN12621000018819). Results: Four emergency physicians completed intubations using both of the two airway devices on four cadavers for a total of 32 experiments. The mean time to intubation was 14.0 s (95% confidence interval = 11.1–16.8) in the hyperangulated video laryngoscope group compared with 29.2 s (95% confidence interval = 20.7–37.7) in the fibre-optic airway scope group; a difference of 15.2 s (95% confidence interval = 8.7–21.7, p < 0.001). All intubations were completed within 2 min, and there were no equipment failures or evidence of airway trauma. Conclusion: Successful intubation of the trachea without airway trauma by emergency physicians in cadavers is achievable by either fibre-optic airway scope via a supraglottic airway device or hyperangulated video laryngoscope. Hyperangulated video laryngoscope was statistically but arguably not clinically significantly faster than fibre-optic airway scope via supraglottic airway device. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A supraglottic airway device (SAD) may be utilised for rescue re‐oxygenation following a failed attempt at endotracheal intubation with direct or video laryngoscopy. However, the choice of subsequent method to secure a definitive airway is not clearly established. The aim of the present study was to compare two techniques for securing a definitive airway via the in‐situ SAD. Methods: A randomised controlled trial was undertaken. The population studied was emergency physicians (EPs) attending a cadaveric airway course. The intervention was intubation through a SAD using a retrograde intubation technique (RIT). The comparison was intubation through a SAD guided by a flexible airway scope (FAS). The primary outcome was time to intubation. The trial was registered with ANZCTR.org.au (ACTRN12621000995875). Results: Four EPs completed intubations using both methods on four cadavers for a total of 32 experiments. The mean time to intubation was 18.2 s (standard deviation 8.8) in the FAS group compared with 52.9 s (standard deviation 11.7) in the RIT group; a difference of 34.7 s (95% confidence interval 27.1–42.3, P < 0.001). All intubations were completed within 2 min and there were no equipment failures or evidence of airway trauma. Conclusion: Successful tracheal intubation of cadavers by EPs is achievable, without iatrogenic airway trauma, via a SAD using either a FAS or RIT, but was 35 s quicker with the FAS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: In response to COVID‐19, we introduced and examined the effect of a raft of modifications to standard practice on adverse events and first‐attempt success (FAS) associated with ED intubation. Methods: An analysis of prospectively collected registry data of all ED intubations over a 3‐year period at an Australian Major Trauma Centre. During the first 6 months of the COVID‐19 pandemic in Australia, we introduced modifications to standard practice to reduce the risk to staff including: aerosolisation reduction, comprehensive personal protective equipment for all intubations, regular low fidelity simulation with 'sign‐off' for all medical and nursing staff, senior clinician laryngoscopist and the introduction of pre‐drawn medications. Results: There were 783 patients, 136 in the COVID‐19 era and 647 in the pre‐COVID‐19 comparator group. The rate of hypoxia was higher during the COVID‐19 era compared to pre‐COVID‐19 (18.4% vs 9.6%, P < 0.005). This occurred despite the FAS rate remaining very high (95.6% vs 93.8%, P = 0.42) and intubation being undertaken by more senior laryngoscopists (consultant 55.9% during COVID‐19 vs 22.6% pre‐COVID‐19, P < 0.001). Other adverse events were similar before and during COVID‐19 (hypotension 12.5% vs 7.9%, P = 0.082; bradycardia 1.5% vs 0.5%, P = 0.21). Video laryngoscopy was more likely to be used during COVID‐19 (95.6% vs 82.5%, P < 0.001) and induction of anaesthesia more often used ketamine (66.9% vs 42.3%, P < 0.001) and rocuronium (86.8% vs 52.1%, P < 0.001). Conclusions: This raft of modifications to ED intubation was associated with significant increase in hypoxia despite a very high FAS rate and more senior first laryngoscopist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This statement was planned on 11 March 2020 to provide clinical guidance and aid staff preparation for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. It has been widely endorsed by relevant specialty colleges and societies.Main Recommendations: Generic guidelines exist for the intubation of different patient groups, as do resources to facilitate airway rescue and transition to the "can't intubate, can't oxygenate" scenario. They should be followed where they do not contradict our specific recommendations for the COVID-19 patient group. Consideration should be given to using a checklist that has been specifically modified for the COVID-19 patient group. Early intubation should be considered to prevent the additional risk to staff of emergency intubation and to avoid prolonged use of high flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation. Significant institutional preparation is required to optimise staff and patient safety in preparing for the airway management of the COVID-19 patient group. The principles for airway management should be the same for all patients with COVID-19 (asymptomatic, mild or critically unwell). Safe, simple, familiar, reliable and robust practices should be adopted for all episodes of airway management for patients with COVID-19.Changes in Management AsA Result Of This Statement: Airway clinicians in Australia and New Zealand should now already be involved in regular intensive training for the airway management of the COVID-19 patient group. This training should focus on the principles of early intervention, meticulous planning, vigilant infection control, efficient processes, clear communication and standardised practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Keywords: Intensive care; COVID-19; Infectious diseases; Respiratory tract infections EN Intensive care COVID-19 Infectious diseases Respiratory tract infections 46 46 1 01/20/21 20210101 NES 210101 B I In reply: i b We thank Triplett and Collett for their interest in our Consensus Statement and for reporting their experience with tracheal intubation in a group of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).1 They identified hypoxaemia during airway management as a frequent occurrence, and suggest this is exacerbated by the practice of minimising mask ventilation via a bag valve mask following the induction of anaesthesia and avoiding apnoeic oxygenation techniques during tracheal intubation. In the second version of our statement (updated online as a preprint on 2 April 2020), we recommended careful bag valve mask ventilation during the onset of muscle relaxant for patients with severe disease. Intensive care, COVID-19, Infectious diseases, Respiratory tract infections. [Extracted from the article]