Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the COVID-19 era: A manikin based pilot study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Protection of anaesthesiologists from contaminated aerosols of COVID 19 patients during endotracheal intubation has spurred the development of barrier devices like aerosol boxes and clear transparent plastic sheets and usage of videolaryngoscopes in COVID 19 patients. However, t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kannaujia, Ashish, Haldar, Rudrashish, Shamim, Rafat, Mishra, Prabhakar, Agarwal, Anil
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191263/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34188622
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_1062_20
_version_ 1783705842663555072
author Kannaujia, Ashish
Haldar, Rudrashish
Shamim, Rafat
Mishra, Prabhakar
Agarwal, Anil
author_facet Kannaujia, Ashish
Haldar, Rudrashish
Shamim, Rafat
Mishra, Prabhakar
Agarwal, Anil
author_sort Kannaujia, Ashish
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Protection of anaesthesiologists from contaminated aerosols of COVID 19 patients during endotracheal intubation has spurred the development of barrier devices like aerosol boxes and clear transparent plastic sheets and usage of videolaryngoscopes in COVID 19 patients. However, the efficiency, feasibility and difficulties faced by anaesthesiologist while performing endotracheal intubations under barrier devices require scientific validation. This manikin-based pilot study aims to assess the laryngoscopic performances of experienced anaesthesiologists under two different barrier enclosures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 53 anaesthesiologists (14 Consultants and 39 Senior Residents) who were undergoing an airway training module as a part of preparedness for handling the COVID 19 pandemic were recruited. Using an aerosol box over a manikin, the participants attempted intubation using a Glidescope Videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscopes (GA and MA Groups). Subsequently, intubation was attempted under a transparent plastic sheet using both laryngoscopes (GP and MP groups). Time required for intubation, first pass success rates, subjective ease of intubation and the feedback obtained from the participants were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Time required for accomplishing successful intubation was 38.55 ± 12.16 seconds, 26.58 ± 5.73 seconds, 46.89 ± 15.23 seconds and 37.26 ± 8.71 seconds for GA, MA, GP and MP groups respectively. Time for intubation and difficulty (VAS) was least for Macintosh group with aerosol box (MA) and maximum time was taken in Glidescope group with transparent polythene drape (GP). First attempt success rate for Glidescope groups (GP and GA) were 100% and in MA and MP group was 98% and 96% respectively. Restriction in hand movement and stylet removal were the major difficulties reported CONCLUSION: Longer intubation times were observed while using Glidescope Videolaryngoscopes with either of the two barrier devices in place compared to Macintosh laryngoscopes.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8191263
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-81912632021-06-28 Comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the COVID-19 era: A manikin based pilot study Kannaujia, Ashish Haldar, Rudrashish Shamim, Rafat Mishra, Prabhakar Agarwal, Anil Saudi J Anaesth Original Article BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Protection of anaesthesiologists from contaminated aerosols of COVID 19 patients during endotracheal intubation has spurred the development of barrier devices like aerosol boxes and clear transparent plastic sheets and usage of videolaryngoscopes in COVID 19 patients. However, the efficiency, feasibility and difficulties faced by anaesthesiologist while performing endotracheal intubations under barrier devices require scientific validation. This manikin-based pilot study aims to assess the laryngoscopic performances of experienced anaesthesiologists under two different barrier enclosures. METHODS AND MATERIALS: 53 anaesthesiologists (14 Consultants and 39 Senior Residents) who were undergoing an airway training module as a part of preparedness for handling the COVID 19 pandemic were recruited. Using an aerosol box over a manikin, the participants attempted intubation using a Glidescope Videolaryngoscope and Macintosh laryngoscopes (GA and MA Groups). Subsequently, intubation was attempted under a transparent plastic sheet using both laryngoscopes (GP and MP groups). Time required for intubation, first pass success rates, subjective ease of intubation and the feedback obtained from the participants were recorded and analysed. RESULTS: Time required for accomplishing successful intubation was 38.55 ± 12.16 seconds, 26.58 ± 5.73 seconds, 46.89 ± 15.23 seconds and 37.26 ± 8.71 seconds for GA, MA, GP and MP groups respectively. Time for intubation and difficulty (VAS) was least for Macintosh group with aerosol box (MA) and maximum time was taken in Glidescope group with transparent polythene drape (GP). First attempt success rate for Glidescope groups (GP and GA) were 100% and in MA and MP group was 98% and 96% respectively. Restriction in hand movement and stylet removal were the major difficulties reported CONCLUSION: Longer intubation times were observed while using Glidescope Videolaryngoscopes with either of the two barrier devices in place compared to Macintosh laryngoscopes. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021 2021-04-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8191263/ /pubmed/34188622 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_1062_20 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Saudi Journal of Anaesthesia https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kannaujia, Ashish
Haldar, Rudrashish
Shamim, Rafat
Mishra, Prabhakar
Agarwal, Anil
Comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the COVID-19 era: A manikin based pilot study
title Comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the COVID-19 era: A manikin based pilot study
title_full Comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the COVID-19 era: A manikin based pilot study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the COVID-19 era: A manikin based pilot study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the COVID-19 era: A manikin based pilot study
title_short Comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the COVID-19 era: A manikin based pilot study
title_sort comparative evaluation of intubation performances using two different barrier devices used in the covid-19 era: a manikin based pilot study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8191263/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34188622
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/sja.sja_1062_20
work_keys_str_mv AT kannaujiaashish comparativeevaluationofintubationperformancesusingtwodifferentbarrierdevicesusedinthecovid19eraamanikinbasedpilotstudy
AT haldarrudrashish comparativeevaluationofintubationperformancesusingtwodifferentbarrierdevicesusedinthecovid19eraamanikinbasedpilotstudy
AT shamimrafat comparativeevaluationofintubationperformancesusingtwodifferentbarrierdevicesusedinthecovid19eraamanikinbasedpilotstudy
AT mishraprabhakar comparativeevaluationofintubationperformancesusingtwodifferentbarrierdevicesusedinthecovid19eraamanikinbasedpilotstudy
AT agarwalanil comparativeevaluationofintubationperformancesusingtwodifferentbarrierdevicesusedinthecovid19eraamanikinbasedpilotstudy