Airway management strategies for the Covid 19 patients: A brief narrative review

The influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on videolaryngoscopy: a cross-sectional before-and-after survey

BACKGROUND

Guidelines and consensus statements recommend the use of videola-ryngoscopes (VLs) in airway management of patients with COVID-19. However, there is a lack of knowledge about which types of videolaryngoscopes are used, differences of use between countries, and how the COVID-19 pandemic influenced their use. The primary aim of this before-and-after cross-sectional survey study was to assess the frequency of the use of videolaryngoscopy in the operation theatres in different countries. Also, the preferred characteristics of videolaryngoscopes were assessed.

METHODS

With Ethics Committee approval, a questionnaire was distributed among anaes-thesiologists through the European Airway Management Society's network in 2019 before and in 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to the questions were analysed and presented as descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

We reached out to 791 anaesthesiologists; 155 (19.5%) returned the first questionnaire, and 91 (11.5%) returned the second survey. Videolaryngoscopes were used in 24.1% of cases before COVID-19 and in 43.1% after the pandemic ( P < 0.001). We revealed that the availability of videolaryngoscopes increased to 100% in all centres during the pandemic. Routine use of videolaryngoscopes in all cases increased from 12.5% to 38.9%. The type of videolaryngoscope and the blade preference did not change during this period ( P = 1.000).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey reflects that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly increased the availability and use of videolaryngoscopes in operating theatres, and that more anaesthesiologists now use them routinely in all cases. The preferred type of VL or blade did not change during the pandemic.

Influence of respiratory protective equipment on simulated advanced airway skills by specialist tracheal intubation teams during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of respiratory protective equipment for clinicians performing airway management.

Aim

To evaluate the impact of powered air-purifying respirators, full-face air-purifying respirators and filtering facepieces on specially trained anaesthesiologists performing difficult airway procedures.

Methods

All our COVID-19 intubation team members carried out various difficult intubation drills: unprotected, wearing a full-face respirator, a filtering facepiece or a powered respirator. Airway management times and wearer comfort were evaluated and analysed.

Results

Total mean (SD) intubation times did not show significant differences between the control, the powered, the full-face respirator and the filtering facepiece groups: Airtraq 6.1 (4.4) vs. 5.4 (3.1) vs. 6.1 (5.6) vs. 7.7 (7.6) s; videolaryngoscopy 11.4 (9.0) vs. 7.7 (4.3) vs. 9.8 (8.4) vs. 12.7 (9.8) s; fibreoptic intubation 16.6 (7.8) vs.13.8 (6.7) vs. 13.6 (8.1) vs. 16.9 (9.2) s; and standard endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy 8.1 (3.5) vs. 6.5 (5.6) vs. 6.2 (4.2) vs. 8.0 (4.4) s, respectively. Use of the Airtraq achieved the shortest intubation times. Anaesthesiologists rated temperature and vision significantly better in the powered respirator group.

Conclusions

Advanced airway management remains unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used if performed by a specially trained, designated team. We conclude that when advanced airway skills are performed by a designated, specially trained team, airway management times remain unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used.