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

Comparison of Three Video Laryngoscopes and Direct Laryngoscopy for Emergency Endotracheal Intubation While Wearing PPE-AGP: A Randomized, Crossover, Simulation Trial

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated changes in the safety protocols of endotracheal intubation at every level of care. This study aimed to compare the first-pass success rates (FPS) and intubation times (IT) of three video laryngoscopes (VL) and direct laryngoscopy (DL) for simulated COVID-19 patient emergency intubation (EI). Methods: The study was a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. Fifty-three active paramedics performed endotracheal intubation with the I-viewTM VL, UESCOPE® VL, ProVu® VL and Macintosh direct laryngoscope (MAC) wearing personal protective equipment for aerosol-generating procedures (PPE-AGP) on a manikin with normal airway conditions. Results: The longest IT was noted when the UESCOPE® (29.4 s) and ProVu® (27.7 s) VL were used. The median IT for I-view was 17.4 s and for MAC DL 17.9 s. The FPS rates were 88.6%, 81.1%, 83.0% and 84.9%, respectively, for I-view, ProVu®, UESCOPE® and MAC DL. The difficulty of EI attempts showed a statistically significant difference between UESCOPE® and ProVu®. Conclusions: The intubation times performed by paramedics in PPE-AGP using UESCOPE® and ProVu® were significantly longer than those with the I-view and Macintosh laryngoscopes. The use of VL by prehospital providers in PPE did not result in more effective EI than the use of a Macintosh laryngoscope.

Transitioning from Direct to Video Laryngoscopy during the COVID-19 Pandemic Was Associated with a Higher Endotracheal Intubation Success Rate

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the effect of transitioning from direct laryngoscopy (DL) to video laryngoscopy (VL) on endotracheal intubation success overall and with enhanced precautions implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

We examined electronic transport records from Mayo Clinic Ambulance Service, a large advanced life support (ALS) provider serving rural, suburban, and urban areas in Minnesota and Wisconsin, USA. We determined the success of intubation attempts when using DL (March 10, 2018 to December 19, 2019), VL (December 20, 2019 to September 29, 2021), and VL with an enhanced COVID-19 guideline that restricted intubation to one attempt, performed by the most experienced clinician, who wore enhanced personal protective equipment (April 1 to December 18, 2020). Success rates at first attempt and after any attempt were assessed for association with type of laryngoscopy (VL vs DL) after adjusting for patient age group, patient weight, use of enhanced COVID-19 guideline, medical vs trauma patient, and ALS vs critical care clinician. A secondary analysis further adjusted for degree of glottic visualization.

RESULTS

We identified 895 intubation attempts using DL and 893 intubation attempts using VL, which included 382 VL intubation attempts using the enhanced COVID-19 guideline. Success on first intubation attempt was 69.2% for encounters with DL, 82.9% overall with VL, and 83.2% with VL and enhanced COVID-19 protocols (DL vs overall VL: p < 0.001; COVID-19 vs non-COVID VL: p = 0.86). In multivariable analysis, use of VL was associate with higher odds of successful intubation on first attempt (odds ratio, 2.28; 95%CI, 1.73-3.01; p < 0.001) and on any attempt (odds ratio, 2.16; 95%CI, 1.58-2.96; p < 0.001) compared with DL. Inclusion of glottic visualization in the model resulted in a nonsignificant association between laryngoscopy type and successful first intubation (p = 0.41) and a significant association with the degree of glottic visualization (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

VL is designed to improve glottic visualization. The use of VL by a large, U.S. multistate ALS ambulance service was associated with increased odds of successful first-pass and overall attempted intubation, which was mediated by better visualization of the glottis. COVID-19 protocols were not associated with success rates.

Impact of COVID-19 specific simulation training in improving intubators' level of comfort during intubations of COVID-19 patients - Results from a USA national survey

Background

Tracheal intubation is a hazardous aerosolizing procedure with a potential risk of spreading SAR-CoV-2 between patients and physicians.

Aim

The purpose of this study was to explore the impact of COVID-19 specific simulation training in improving provider level of comfort during the intubation of COVID-19 patients.

Methods

In this cross-sectional national study, an electronic survey was disseminated using a snowball sample approach to intubators from 55 hospitals across the United States. The survey assessed providers' comfort of intubating and fear of contracting the virus during COVID-19 intubations.

Results

A total of 329 surveys from 55 hospitals were analyzed. Of 329 providers, 111 providers (33.7%) reported participating in simulation training. Of those, 86 (77.5%) reported that the simulation training helped reduce their fear of intubating COVID-19 patients. Providers in the simulation training group also reported a higher level of comfort level with intubating both general patients (median [range] no-simulation training group 9 [3-10], simulation training group 9 [6-10]; p = 0.015) and COVID-19 patients (no-ST 8 [1-10], ST group 9 [4-10]; p < 0.0005) than providers in the no-simulation training group.

Conclusions

Our study suggests that COVID-19 specific intubation simulation training promotes provider comfort. Simulation training may be implemented as part of airway management training during the current and novel pandemic situations.