Cargando…

The impact of a barrier enclosure on time to tracheal intubation: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE: Novel devices such as the barrier enclosure were developed in hopes of improving provider safety by limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission during tracheal intubation. Nevertheless, concerns arose regarding a lack of rigorous efficacy and safety data for these devices. We conducted a randomized co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jen, Tim T. H., Gusti, Vionarica, Badh, Charanjit, Mehta, Sachin, Denomme, Justine, Lockhart, Shannon, Shams, Benajir, Klaibert, Beau, Chau, Anthony
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8109846/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33973161
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12630-021-02024-z
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: Novel devices such as the barrier enclosure were developed in hopes of improving provider safety by limiting SARS-CoV-2 transmission during tracheal intubation. Nevertheless, concerns arose regarding a lack of rigorous efficacy and safety data for these devices. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the impact of the barrier enclosure on time to tracheal intubation. METHOD: After Research Ethics Board approval, elective surgical patients with normal airway predictors were randomly allocated 1:1 to tracheal intubation with or without a barrier enclosure. The primary outcome was time to tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes included first-pass success rate, total time of airway manipulation, anesthesiologists’ perception of intubation difficulty, likelihood of use in SARS-CoV-2-positive patients, and patients’ perception of comfort and acceptability. RESULTS: There were 48 participants in the barrier enclosure group and 46 participants in the control group. The mean (standard deviation [SD]) time to tracheal intubation was 62 (29) sec with barrier closure and 53 (27) sec without barrier enclosure (mean difference, 9 sec; 95% confidence interval, − 3 to 20; P = 0.14). Anesthesiologists rated the difficulty of intubation higher with barrier enclosure (mean [SD] visual analogue scale score, 27 [26] mm vs 9 [17] mm; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: In healthy surgical patients with normal airway predictors, the use of a barrier enclosure during tracheal intubation did not significantly prolong time to intubation or decrease first-pass intubation success. Nevertheless, there was an increase in difficulty of intubation perceived by the anesthesiologists with use of a barrier enclosure. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04366141); registered 28 April 2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12630-021-02024-z.