Cargando…

Impact of aerosol box on intubation during COVID-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways

PURPOSE: Patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are at risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, and concerns of protecting healthcare workers during aerosol-generating medical procedures has led to the design of the aerosol box. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover mannequin-based sim...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fong, Sunny, Li, Elliott, Violato, Efrem, Reid, Andrew, Gu, Yuqi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7544519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33033956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01825-y
_version_ 1783591872137003008
author Fong, Sunny
Li, Elliott
Violato, Efrem
Reid, Andrew
Gu, Yuqi
author_facet Fong, Sunny
Li, Elliott
Violato, Efrem
Reid, Andrew
Gu, Yuqi
author_sort Fong, Sunny
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are at risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, and concerns of protecting healthcare workers during aerosol-generating medical procedures has led to the design of the aerosol box. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover mannequin-based simulation study to compare airway management with and without the aerosol box. Thirty-five anesthesiology participants and three critical care participants with more than 50 intubations with videolaryngoscopes were recruited. There were four airway simulations with and without the aerosol box (normal, pharyngeal swelling, cervical spine rigidity, and tongue edema). Each participant intubated the mannequin in eight consecutive simulations. The primary outcome of the study was time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included intubation attempts, optimization maneuvers, and personal protective equipment breaches. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) time to intubation overall with the box was 30.9 (23.0) sec, while the time to intubation without the box was 25.1 (12.2) sec (mean difference, 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.9 to 14.5). For the normal airway scenario, the mean (SD) time to intubation was 18.6 (3.5) sec for no box and 20.4 (3.3) sec for box (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.2 to 3.4). During difficult airway scenarios only, the time to intubation was 34.4 (25.6) sec with the aerosol box and 27.3 (13.2) sec without the aerosol box (mean difference, 7.1; 95% CI, −2.5 to 16.7). There were more intubation attempts, personal protective equipment breaches, and optimization maneuvers during use of the aerosol box. CONCLUSIONS: In this mannequin-based simulation study, the use of the aerosol box increased the time to intubation in some contexts but not others. Further studies in a clinical setting should be conducted to make appropriate modifications to the aerosol box to fully elicit its efficacy and safety prior to implementation in airway guidelines for managing patients with COVID-19.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7544519
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-75445192020-10-09 Impact of aerosol box on intubation during COVID-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways Fong, Sunny Li, Elliott Violato, Efrem Reid, Andrew Gu, Yuqi Can J Anaesth Reports of Original Investigations PURPOSE: Patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are at risk of requiring mechanical ventilation, and concerns of protecting healthcare workers during aerosol-generating medical procedures has led to the design of the aerosol box. METHODS: We conducted a randomized crossover mannequin-based simulation study to compare airway management with and without the aerosol box. Thirty-five anesthesiology participants and three critical care participants with more than 50 intubations with videolaryngoscopes were recruited. There were four airway simulations with and without the aerosol box (normal, pharyngeal swelling, cervical spine rigidity, and tongue edema). Each participant intubated the mannequin in eight consecutive simulations. The primary outcome of the study was time to intubation. Secondary outcomes included intubation attempts, optimization maneuvers, and personal protective equipment breaches. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) time to intubation overall with the box was 30.9 (23.0) sec, while the time to intubation without the box was 25.1 (12.2) sec (mean difference, 5.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.9 to 14.5). For the normal airway scenario, the mean (SD) time to intubation was 18.6 (3.5) sec for no box and 20.4 (3.3) sec for box (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.2 to 3.4). During difficult airway scenarios only, the time to intubation was 34.4 (25.6) sec with the aerosol box and 27.3 (13.2) sec without the aerosol box (mean difference, 7.1; 95% CI, −2.5 to 16.7). There were more intubation attempts, personal protective equipment breaches, and optimization maneuvers during use of the aerosol box. CONCLUSIONS: In this mannequin-based simulation study, the use of the aerosol box increased the time to intubation in some contexts but not others. Further studies in a clinical setting should be conducted to make appropriate modifications to the aerosol box to fully elicit its efficacy and safety prior to implementation in airway guidelines for managing patients with COVID-19. Springer International Publishing 2020-10-09 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7544519/ /pubmed/33033956 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01825-y Text en © Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society 2020, Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. This article is made available via the PMC Open Access Subset for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.
spellingShingle Reports of Original Investigations
Fong, Sunny
Li, Elliott
Violato, Efrem
Reid, Andrew
Gu, Yuqi
Impact of aerosol box on intubation during COVID-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways
title Impact of aerosol box on intubation during COVID-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways
title_full Impact of aerosol box on intubation during COVID-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways
title_fullStr Impact of aerosol box on intubation during COVID-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways
title_full_unstemmed Impact of aerosol box on intubation during COVID-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways
title_short Impact of aerosol box on intubation during COVID-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways
title_sort impact of aerosol box on intubation during covid-19: a simulation study of normal and difficult airways
topic Reports of Original Investigations
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7544519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33033956
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-020-01825-y
work_keys_str_mv AT fongsunny impactofaerosolboxonintubationduringcovid19asimulationstudyofnormalanddifficultairways
AT lielliott impactofaerosolboxonintubationduringcovid19asimulationstudyofnormalanddifficultairways
AT violatoefrem impactofaerosolboxonintubationduringcovid19asimulationstudyofnormalanddifficultairways
AT reidandrew impactofaerosolboxonintubationduringcovid19asimulationstudyofnormalanddifficultairways
AT guyuqi impactofaerosolboxonintubationduringcovid19asimulationstudyofnormalanddifficultairways