Tracheal intubation while wearing personal protective equipment in simulation studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial-sequential analysis

Refocusing on work-based hazards for the anaesthesiologist in a post-pandemic era

The coronavirus pandemic has raised public awareness of one of the many hazards that healthcare workers face daily: exposure to harmful pathogens. The anaesthesia workplace encompasses the operating room, interventional radiology suite, and other sites that contain many other potential occupational and environmental hazards. This review article highlights the work-based hazards that anaesthesiologists and other clinicians may encounter in the anaesthesia workplace: ergonomic design, physical, chemical, fire, biological, or psychological hazards. As the anaesthesia work environment enters a post-COVID-19 pandemic phase, anaesthesiologists will do well to review and consider these hazards. The current review includes proposed solutions to some hazards and identifies opportunities for future research.

Continuous aerosol monitoring and comparison of aerosol exposure based on smoke dispersion distance and concentrations during oxygenation therapy

This study evaluated the aerosol exposure risks while using common noninvasive oxygenation devices. A simulated mannequin was designed to breathe at a minute ventilation of 20 L/min and used the following oxygen-therapy devices: nasal cannula oxygenation (NCO) at 4 and 15 L/min, nonrebreathing mask (NRM) at 15 L/min, simple mask at 6 L/min, combination of NCO at 15 L/min and NRM at 15 L/min, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) at 50 L/min, and flush rate NRM. Two-dimension of the dispersion distance and the aerosol concentrations were measured at head, trunk, and foot around the mannequin for over 10 min. HFNC and flush-rate NRM yielded the longest dispersion distance and highest aerosol concentrations over the three sites of the mannequin than the other oxygenation devices and should use with caution. For flow rates of < 15 L/min, oxygenation devices with mask-like effects, such as NRM or NCO with NRM, decreased aerosol dispersion more effectively than NCO alone or a simple mask. In the upright position, the foot area exhibited the highest aerosol concentration regardless of the oxygenation device than the head-trunk areas of the mannequin. Healthcare workers should be alert even at the foot side of the patient while administering oxygenation therapy.

Human factors in anaesthesia: a narrative review

Healthcare relies on high levels of human performance, as described by the 'human as the hero' concept. However, human performance varies and is recognised to fall in high-pressure situations, meaning that it is not a reliable method of ensuring safety. Other safety-critical industries embed human factors principles into all aspects of their organisations to improve safety and reduce reliance on exceptional human performance; there is potential to do the same in anaesthesia. Human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline which aims to make it as easy as possible for workers to do things correctly. The human factors strategies most likely to be effective are those which 'design out' the chance of an error or adverse event occurring. When errors or adverse events do happen, barriers are in place to trap them and reduce the risk of progression to patient and/or worker harm. If errors or adverse events are not trapped by these barriers, mitigations are in place to minimise the consequences. Non-technical skills form an important part of human factors barriers and mitigation strategies and include: situation awareness; decision-making; task management; and team working. Human factors principles are not a substitute for proper investment and appropriate staffing levels. Although applying human factors science has the potential to save money in the long term, its proper implementation may require investment before reward can be reaped. This narrative review describes what is known about human factors in anaesthesia to date.

Association between First-pass Intubation Success and Enhanced PPE Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated first-pass endotracheal intubation (ETI) success within the critical care transport (CCT) environment using a natural experiment created by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our primary objective was to evaluate if the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) or the COVID-19 time period was associated with differences in first-pass success rates of ETI within a large CCT system with a high baseline ETI first-pass success rate. We hypothesized that pandemic-related challenges would be associated with decreased first-pass success rates.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective before-after cohort study of airway management by CCT personnel relative to the COVID-19 pandemic. We used a mixed effects logistic regression to evaluate the association between enhanced PPE (N95 mask, eye protection) use and the pandemic time period on first-pass intubation success, while controlling for other factors potentially associated with intubation success. Variables in the final model included patient demographics (age, sex, and race), body mass index, medical category (trauma versus non-trauma), interfacility or scene response, blade size (Macintosh 3 versus 4), use of face mask, use of eye protection, and crew member length of service.

RESULTS

We identified 1279 cases involving intubation attempts on adult patients during the study period. A total of 1133 cases were included in the final analysis, with an overall first-pass success rate of 95.7% (96.4% pre-COVID-19 and 94.8% during COVID-19). In our final mixed effects logistic regression model, enhanced PPE use and the COVID-19 time period were not associated with first-pass intubation success rate.

CONCLUSION

In a large regional CCT system with a high ETI first-pass success rate, neither PPE use nor the COVID-19 time period were associated with differences in ETI first-pass success while controlling for relevant patient and operational factors. Other emergency medical services (EMS) systems may have encountered different effects of pandemic-related PPE use on intubation success rates. Further studies are needed to evaluate the influence of sustained use of enhanced PPE or changes in training or procedural experience on post-pandemic ETI first-pass success rates for non-CCT EMS clinicians.

Endotracheal Intubation Using C-MAC Video Laryngoscope vs. Direct Laryngoscope While Wearing Personal Protective Equipment

This study sought to determine whether the C-MAC video laryngoscope (VL) performed better than a direct laryngoscope (DL) when attempting endotracheal intubation (ETI) in the emergency department (ED) while wearing personal protective equipment (PPE). This was a retrospective single-center observational study conducted in an academic ED between February 2020 and March 2022. All emergency medical personnel who participated in any ETI procedure were required to wear PPE. The patients were divided into the C-MAC VL group and the DL group based on the device used during the first ETI attempt. The primary outcome measure was the first-pass success (FPS) rate. A multiple logistic regression was used to determine the factors associated with FPS. Of the 756 eligible patients, 650 were assigned to the C-MAC group and 106 to the DL group. The overall FPS rate was 83.5% (n = 631/756). The C-MAC group had a significantly higher FPS rate than the DL group (85.7% vs. 69.8%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable logistic regression analysis, C-MAC use was significantly associated with an increased FPS rate (adjusted odds ratio, 2.86; 95% confidence interval, 1.69−4.08; p < 0.001). In this study, we found that the FPS rate of ETI was significantly higher when the C-MAC VL was used than when a DL was used by emergency physicians constrained by cumbersome PPE.