Emergency Airway Management in Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective International Multicenter Cohort Study

Hospital cohort study on survival predictors for intubated coronavirus disease 2019 patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the predictors of survival among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who underwent tracheal intubation, as part of a hospital cohort study.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study in the Rio do Sul County Hospital, Santa Catarina, Brazil, from April 2020 to May 2021, focused on patients aged 18 years or older intubated for coronavirus disease 2019. We assessed the 90-day survival of intubated patients by estimating the hazard ratio using a Cox proportional hazards regression model.

RESULTS

The study included 132 participants, with an average age of approximately 60 years. Tracheal intubation was successfully accomplished in 97% of cases within two attempts. The overall mortality rate was 62.9%. Notably, mortality rates were significantly higher in patients aged over 60 years (hazard ratio=2.57; 95%CI 1.54-4.29; p<0.001), those with blood oxygen saturation below 85% (hazard ratio=1.92; 95%CI 1.03-3.57; p=0.04), instances where tracheal intubation was carried out using a conventional laryngoscope (hazard ratio=2.59; 95%CI 1.22-5.48; p=0.013), and when performed by emergency physicians (hazard ratio=3.96; 95%CI 1.51-10.4; p=0.005).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis unveiled that the risk of death in intubated coronavirus disease 2019 patients is four times higher when an emergency physician, as opposed to an anesthesiologist, leads the tracheal intubation team.

Non-theatre emergency airway management: a multicentre prospective observational study

Emergency airway management events are common, unpredictable and associated with high complication rates. This multicentre prospective observational study across eight acute NHS hospitals in southeast England reports the incidence and nature of non-theatre emergency airway management events. Data were collected from non-theatre emergency airway management, including adverse events, over a continuous 28-day window, and recorded on an electronic case report form. Events were classified according to type (advanced airway; simple airway; and cardiac arrest). A total of 166 events were recorded, with 111 advanced airway events involving tracheal intubation or tracheostomy management. Senior personnel with three or more years of airway management experience were present for 105/111 (95%) advanced airway management episodes. There was a significant reduction in consultant or equivalent presence out-of-hours (21/64, 33%) vs. in-hours (34/47, 72%) (p < 0.001). We found high utilisation of videolaryngoscopy (95/106, 90%) and universal use of capnography for all advanced airway management events. This was lower during cardiac arrest when videolaryngoscopy was used in 11/16 (69%) of tracheal intubations and capnography in 21/32 (66%) of all cardiac arrest episodes. Adverse outcomes during advanced airway management (excluding during cardiac arrest) occurred in 53/111 (48%) episodes, including hypoxia (desaturation to Sp O2 < 80% in 14/111, 13%) and hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 80 mmHg in 27/111, 25%). Adverse outcomes were not associated with time of day or experience level of airway practitioners. We conclude that there is a disparity between consultant presence for advanced airway interventions in- and out-of-hours; high utilisation of videolaryngoscopy and capnography, especially for advanced airway interventions; and a high incidence of hypotension and hypoxaemia, including critical values, during non-theatre airway management.

Approach to the Physiologically Challenging Endotracheal Intubation in the Intensive Care Unit

Endotracheal intubation for airway management is a common procedure in the ICU. Intubation may be difficult due to anatomic airway abnormalities but also due to physiologic derangements that predispose patients to cardiovascular collapse during the procedure. Results of studies demonstrate a high incidence of morbidity and mortality associated with airway management in the ICU. To reduce the likelihood of complications, medical teams must be well versed in the general principles of intubation and be prepared to manage physiologic derangements while securing the airway. In this review, we present relevant literature on the approach to endotracheal intubation in the ICU and provide pragmatic recommendations relevant to medical teams performing intubations in patients who are physiologically unstable.

Efficacy and adverse events profile of videolaryngoscopy in critically ill patients: subanalysis of the INTUBE study

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation is a high-risk procedure in the critically ill, with increased intubation failure rates and a high risk of other adverse events. Videolaryngoscopy might improve intubation outcomes in this population, but evidence remains conflicting, and its impact on adverse event rates is debated.

METHODS

This is a subanalysis of a large international prospective cohort of critically ill patients (INTUBE Study) performed from 1 October 2018 to 31 July 2019 and involving 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents. Our primary aim was to determine the first-pass intubation success rates of videolaryngoscopy. Secondary aims were characterising (a) videolaryngoscopy use in the critically ill patient population and (b) the incidence of severe adverse effects compared with direct laryngoscopy.

RESULTS

Of 2916 patients, videolaryngoscopy was used in 500 patients (17.2%) and direct laryngoscopy in 2416 (82.8%). First-pass intubation success was higher with videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy (84% vs 79%, P=0.02). Patients undergoing videolaryngoscopy had a higher frequency of difficult airway predictors (60% vs 40%, P<0.001). In adjusted analyses, videolaryngoscopy increased the probability of first-pass intubation success, with an OR of 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.87). Videolaryngoscopy was not significantly associated with risk of major adverse events (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.95-1.62) or cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients, videolaryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass intubation success rates, despite being used in a population at higher risk of difficult airway management. Videolaryngoscopy was not associated with overall risk of major adverse events.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03616054.

Airway Management: The Current Role of Videolaryngoscopy

Airway management is usually an uncomplicated and safe intervention; however, when problems arise with the primary airway technique, the clinical situation can rapidly deteriorate, resulting in significant patient harm. Videolaryngoscopy has been shown to improve patient outcomes when compared with direct laryngoscopy, including improved first-pass success at tracheal intubation, reduced difficult laryngeal views, reduced oxygen desaturation, reduced airway trauma, and improved recognition of oesophageal intubation. The shared view that videolaryngoscopy affords may also facilitate superior teaching, training, and multidisciplinary team performance. As such, its recommended role in airway management has evolved from occasional use as a rescue device (when direct laryngoscopy fails) to a first-intention technique that should be incorporated into routine clinical practice, and this is reflected in recently updated guidelines from a number of international airway societies. However, currently, overall videolaryngoscopy usage is not commensurate with its now widespread availability. A number of factors exist that may be preventing its full adoption, including perceived financial costs, inadequacy of education and training, challenges in achieving deliverable decontamination processes, concerns over sustainability, fears over "de-skilling" at direct laryngoscopy, and perceived limitations of videolaryngoscopes. This article reviews the most up-to-date evidence supporting videolaryngoscopy, explores its current scope of utilisation (including specialist techniques), the potential barriers preventing its full adoption, and areas for future advancement and research.

Endotracheal Intubation Strategy, Success, and Adverse Events Among Emergency Department Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To describe endotracheal intubation practices in emergency departments by staff intubating patients early in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.

METHODS

Multicenter prospective cohort study of endotracheal intubations conducted at 20 US academic emergency departments from May to December 2020, stratified by known or suspected COVID-19 status. We used multivariable regression to measure the association between intubation strategy, COVID-19 known or suspected status, first-pass success, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There were 3,435 unique emergency department endotracheal intubations by 586 participating physicians or advanced practice providers; 565 (18%) patients were known or suspected of having COVID-19 at the time of endotracheal intubation. Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubations of patients with known or suspected COVID-19 were more often performed using video laryngoscopy (88% versus 82%, difference 6.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.0% to 9.6%) and passive nasal oxygenation (44% versus 39%, difference 5.1%; 95% CI, 0.9% to 9.3%). First-pass success was not different between those who were and were not known or suspected of COVID-19 (87% versus 86%, difference 0.6%; 95% CI, -2.4% to 3.6%). Adjusting for patient characteristics and procedure factors in those with low anticipated airway difficulty (n=2,374), adverse events (most commonly hypoxia) occurred more frequently in patients with known or suspected COVID-19 (35% versus 19%, adjusted odds ratio 2.4; 95% CI, 1.7 to 3.3).

CONCLUSION

Compared with patients not known or suspected of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation of those confirmed or suspected to have COVID-19 was associated with a similar first-pass intubation success rate but higher risk-adjusted adverse events.

A Comparison of Intubation and Airway Complications Between COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 Critically Ill Subjects

Introduction The number of subjects infected with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) throughout the western hemisphere increased exponentially in the later months of 2020. With this increase in infection, the number of subjects requiring advanced ventilatory support increased concomitantly. We decided to compare the survival rates between coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) subjects versus non-COVID-19 subjects undergoing intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We hypothesized that COVID-19 subjects would have lower rates of survival post-intubation. Methods We screened all subjects admitted to the adult critical care unit between January 2020 and June 2020 to determine if they met the inclusion criteria. These subjects were required to be spontaneously ventilating upon admission and eventually required intubation. Subjects were selected from our electronic health record (EHR) system EPIC© (Epic Systems, Verona, WI) through a retrospective ICU admission analysis. We identified and included 267 non-COVID-19 subjects and 56 COVID-19 subjects. Our primary outcome of interest was intubation-related mortality. We defined intubation mortality as unexpected death (within 48 hours of intubation). Our secondary outcomes were the length of stay in the ICU, length of time requiring ventilator support, and proportion of subjects requiring tracheostomy placement. Results Compared to non-coronavirus disease (COVID) subjects, COVID subjects were more likely to be intubated for acute respiratory distress. COVID subjects had longer stays in the ICU and longer ventilator duration than non-COVID subjects. COVID-positive subjects had a decreased hazard ratio for mortality (HR = 0.42, 95% CI: 0.20-0.87, P < 0.05) and increased chances of survival compared to non-COVID subjects. Conclusions We showed the rates of intubation survival were no different between the COVID and non-COVID groups. We attribute this finding to intubation preparation, a multidisciplinary team approach, and having the most experienced provider lead the intubation process.

Effect of Remifentanil vs Neuromuscular Blockers During Rapid Sequence Intubation on Successful Intubation Without Major Complications Among Patients at Risk of Aspiration: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

It is uncertain whether a rapid-onset opioid is noninferior to a rapid-onset neuromuscular blocker during rapid sequence intubation when used in conjunction with a hypnotic agent.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether remifentanil is noninferior to rapid-onset neuromuscular blockers for rapid sequence intubation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial among 1150 adults at risk of aspiration (fasting for <6 hours, bowel occlusion, recent trauma, or severe gastroesophageal reflux) who underwent tracheal intubation in the operating room at 15 hospitals in France from October 2019 to April 2021. Follow-up was completed on May 15, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to receive neuromuscular blockers (1 mg/kg of succinylcholine or rocuronium; n = 575) or remifentanil (3 to 4 μg/kg; n = 575) immediately after injection of a hypnotic.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was assessed in all randomized patients (as-randomized population) and in all eligible patients who received assigned treatment (per-protocol population). The primary outcome was successful tracheal intubation on the first attempt without major complications, defined as lung aspiration of digestive content, oxygen desaturation, major hemodynamic instability, sustained arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, and severe anaphylactic reaction. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 7.0%.

RESULTS

Among 1150 randomized patients (mean age, 50.7 [SD, 17.4] years; 573 [50%] women), 1130 (98.3%) completed the trial. In the as-randomized population, tracheal intubation on the first attempt without major complications occurred in 374 of 575 patients (66.1%) in the remifentanil group and 408 of 575 (71.6%) in the neuromuscular blocker group (between-group difference adjusted for randomization strata and center, -6.1%; 95% CI, -11.6% to -0.5%; P = .37 for noninferiority), demonstrating inferiority. In the per-protocol population, 374 of 565 patients (66.2%) in the remifentanil group and 403 of 565 (71.3%) in the neuromuscular blocker group had successful intubation without major complications (adjusted difference, -5.7%; 2-sided 95% CI, -11.3% to -0.1%; P = .32 for noninferiority). An adverse event of hemodynamic instability was recorded in 19 of 575 patients (3.3%) with remifentanil and 3 of 575 (0.5%) with neuromuscular blockers (adjusted difference, 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-4.4%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among adults at risk of aspiration during rapid sequence intubation in the operating room, remifentanil, compared with neuromuscular blockers, did not meet the criterion for noninferiority with regard to successful intubation on first attempt without major complications. Although remifentanil was statistically inferior to neuromuscular blockers, the wide confidence interval around the effect estimate remains compatible with noninferiority and limits conclusions about the clinical relevance of the difference.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03960801.

A prospective observational study comparing outcomes before and after the introduction of an intubation protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic

OBJECTIVE

Orotracheal intubation is a life-saving procedure commonly performed in the Intensive Care unit and Emergency Department as a part of emergency airway management. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, our center undertook a prospective observational study to characterize emergency intubation performed in the emergency department and critical care settings at Manitoba's largest tertiary hospital. During this study, a natural experiment emerged when a standardized "COVID-Protected Rapid Sequence Intubation Protocol" was implemented in response to the pandemic. The resultant study aimed to answer the question; in adult ED patients undergoing emergent intubation by EM and CCM teams, does the use of a "COVID-Protected Rapid Sequence Intubation Protocol" impact first-pass success or other intubation-related outcomes?

METHODS

A single-center prospective quasi-experimental before and after study was conducted. Data were prospectively collected on consecutive emergent intubations. The primary outcome was the difference in first-pass success rates. Secondary outcomes included best Modified Cormack-Lehane view, hypoxemia, hypotension, esophageal intubation, cannot intubate cannot oxygenate scenarios, CPR post intubation, vasopressors required post intubation, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) mortality, ICU length of stay (LOS), and mechanical ventilation days.

RESULTS

Data were collected on 630 patients, 416 in the pre-protocol period and 214 in the post-protocol period. First-pass success rates in the pre-protocol period were found to be 73.1% (n = 304). Following the introduction of the protocol, first-pass success rates increased to 82.2% (n = 176, p = 0.0105). There was a statistically significant difference in Modified Cormack-Lehane view favoring the protocol (p = 0.0191). Esophageal intubation rates were found to be 5.1% pre-protocol introduction versus 0.5% following the introduction of the protocol (p = 0.0172).

CONCLUSION

A "COVID-Protected Protocol" implemented by Emergency Medicine and Critical Care teams in response to the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with increased first-pass success rates and decreases in adverse events.

Aerosol precautions and airway complications: a national prospective multicentre cohort study

The perceived risk of transmission of aerosolised viral particles from patients to airway practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the widespread use of aerosol precautions, including personal protective equipment and modifications to anaesthetic technique. The risk of these aerosol precautions on peri-operative airway complications has not been assessed outside of simulation studies. This prospective, national, multicentre cohort study aimed to quantify this risk. Adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective or emergency procedures over a 96-hour period were included. Data collected included use of aerosol precautions by the airway practitioner, airway complications and potential confounding variables. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to assess the risk of individual aerosol precautions on overall and specific airway complications. Data from 5905 patients from 70 hospital sites were included. The rate of airway complications was 10.0% (95%CI 9.2-10.8%). Use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications (odds ratio 1.38, 95%CI 1.04-1.83), predominantly due to an association with difficult facemask ventilation (odds ratio 1.68, 95%CI 1.09-2.61) and desaturation on pulse oximetry (odds ratio 2.39, 95%CI 1.26-4.54). Use of goggles, powered air-purifying respirators, long-sleeved gowns, double gloves and videolaryngoscopy were not associated with any alteration in the risk of airway complications. Overall, the use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications, but most aerosol precautions used during the COVID-19 pandemic were not.

Maintaining Prehospital Intubation Success with COVID-19 Personal Protective Precautions

Background:

Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention for exposure to airborne infective pathogens, including the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). During the recent pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) was essential to protect staff during intubation but is recognized to make the practical conduct of anesthesia and intubation more difficult. In the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic, some simple alterations were made to the emergency anesthesia standard operating procedure (SOP) of a prehospital critical care service to attempt to maintain high intubation success rates despite the challenges posed by wearing PPE. This retrospective observational cohort study aims to compare first-pass intubation success rates before and after the introduction of PPE and an altered SOP.

Methodology:

A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2019 through August 30, 2021. The retrospective analysis used prospectively collected data using prehospital electronic patient records. Anonymized data were held in Excel (v16.54) and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v28). Patient inclusion criteria were those of all ages who received a primary tracheal intubation attempt outside the hospital by critical care teams. March 27, 2020 was the date from which the SOP changed to mandatory COVID-19 SOP including Level 3 PPE – this date is used to separate the cohort groups.

Results:

Data were analyzed from 1,266 patients who received primary intubations by the service. The overall first-pass intubation success rate was 89.7% and the overall intubation success rate was 99.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in first-pass success rate between the two groups: 90.3% in the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546) and 89.3% in the COVID-19 group (n = 720); Pearson chi-square 0.329; P = .566. In addition, there was no statistical difference in overall intubation success rate between groups: 99.8% in the pre-COVID-19 group and 100.0% in the COVID-19 group; Pearson chi-square 1.32; P = .251.

Non-drug-assisted intubations were more than twice as likely to require multiple attempts in both the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546; OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.19-3.90; P = .01) and in the COVID-19 group (n = 720; OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1; P = <.001).

Conclusion:

This study presents simple changes to a prehospital intubation SOP in response to COVID-19 which included mandatory use of PPE, the first intubator always being the most experienced clinician, and routine first use of video laryngoscopy (VL). These changes allowed protection of the clinical team while successfully maintaining the first-pass and overall success rates for prehospital tracheal intubation.

Lessons from SARS‑CoV‑2 and its variants (Review)

COVID-19 has swept through mainland China by human-to-human transmission. The rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, including the currently prevalent Omicron strain, pose a serious threat worldwide. The present review summarizes epidemiological investigation and etiological analysis of genomic, epidemiological, and pathological characteristics of the original strain and its variants, as well as progress in diagnosis and treatment. Prevention and control measures used during the current Omicron pandemic are discussed to provide further knowledge of SARS-CoV-2.

Airway recommendations for perioperative patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review

Purpose

Source

Principal findings

Conclusion

Study registration

Supplementary Information

Tracheal intubation in the critically ill patient

Tracheal intubation is among the most commonly performed and high-risk procedures in critical care. Indeed, 45% of patients undergoing intubation experience at least one major peri-intubation adverse event, with cardiovascular instability being the most common event reported in 43%, followed by severe hypoxemia in 9% and cardiac arrest in 3% of cases. These peri-intubation adverse events may expose patients to a higher risk of 28-day mortality, and they are more frequently observed with an increasing number of attempts to secure the airway. The higher risk of peri-intubation complications in critically ill patients, compared with the anaesthesia setting, is the consequence of their deranged physiology (e.g. underlying respiratory failure, shock and/or acidosis) and, in this regard, airway management in critical care has been defined as "physiologically difficult". In recent years, several randomised studies have investigated the most effective preoxy-genation strategies, and evidence for the use of positive pressure ventilation in moderate-to-severe hypoxemic patients is established. On the other hand, evidence on interventions to mitigate haemodynamic collapse after intubation has been elusive. Airway management in COVID-19 patients is even more challenging because of the additional risk of infection for healthcare workers, which has influenced clinical choices in this patient group. The aim of this review is to provide an update of the evidence for intubation in critically ill patients with a focus on understanding peri-intubation risks and evaluating interventions to prevent or mitigate adverse events.

Emergent Surgical Airway Skills: Time to Re-evaluate the Competencies

Introduction

One of the most challenging scenarios an anesthesia provider can face is treating a can't intubate can't ventilate (CICV) patient. The incidence of CICV is estimated to be around one in 10,000 cases. According to the American Society of Anesthesiology Closed Claims Study, adverse respiratory events are the most common type of injury, with difficult intubation and ventilation contributing to the majority of these cases. The objective of this non-interventional quality improvement project was to evaluate the prior training, exposure, and self-reported confidence in handling the CICV scenario among anesthesia providers at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, MI.

Methods

An online questionnaire was distributed via email to all residents, certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs), and attending anesthesiologists in March 2021. The email contained a link to an online questionnaire via Microsoft Forms (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA). Univariate group comparisons were carried out between the respondents’ role (attending, CRNA, or resident), as well as between the number of years that the respondents were in practice (< 5 years, 5-10 years, > 10 years).

Results

Out of the total 170 anesthesia providers, 119 participated in the study where 54 (45%) were attendings, 44 (37%) were residents, and 21 (18%) were CRNAs. The majority (75%) did not know the surgical airway kit location, and 87% had not performed the surgical airway procedure before. The vast majority (96.7%) recommended simulation training compared to online training or lecture series, and just over 50% recommended annual training frequency. When looking at the differences in responses based on years of experience as an anesthesia provider, the majority of those with > 10 years in practice knew how to perform the surgical airway technique while respondents with < 5 years did not know how to perform the technique, and 50% of those with five to 10 years experience knew how to perform the surgical airway procedure for a CICV scenario.

Conclusion

Although there were many significant differences observed between the various provider roles and years in practice, surprisingly, the responses revealed both a lack of experience and confidence in performing the surgical airway procedure in all provider roles. These findings highlight a need for better emergency airway teaching and training. These findings will be used to guide the design and implementation of improved surgical airway training for residents, CRNAs, and attending anesthesiologists with the goal of better preparedness for handling a CICV scenario.

Abstract No.: ABS0125: Study of airway management in 50 COVID positive patients in ICU

Background & Aims:

The aim was to successfully perform airway management by securing definite airway via endotracheal tube in emergency or semi- emergency situation in first attempt without causing any trauma to the patient.

Methods:

In our ICU, tracheal intubation was done for patients with COVID-19 which was based on clinical criteria as per the institute protocol. Intubation was performed by an expert in airway management using method of rapid sequence intubation anddirect laryngoscope. Propofol or etomidate were used as induction agent and succinylcholine or rocuronium as musclerelaxant, according to the patient profile. Intubation box, acrylic face shield and personal protective equipment were also used for safety. Various pathological factors also contribute to difficulty in airway management such as edema and ulceration ofepiglottis and vocal cords.

Results:

Despite a multitude of technical and pathological factors contributing to difficult airway management,in this study of total 50 patients, 45 patients were intubated successfully in the first attempt, 4 patients were intubated in second attempt and 1 patient was intubated after 3 attempts using bougie with some trauma to the patient. All the intubations were performed using direct laryngoscope and rapid sequence intubation by an expert airway manager.

Conclusion:

Therefore, to conclude, in the majority of the COVID 19 ICU patients, airway management was done successfully in the first attempt in emergency situation by the expert airway manager.

A specialized airway management team for COVID-19 patients: a retrospective study of the experience of two Canadian hospitals in Toronto

BACKGROUND

In the COVID-19 pandemic, an unprecedented number of individuals required endotracheal intubation. To safely face these challenges, expert intubation teams were formed in some institutions. Here, we report on the experience of emergency rapid intubation teams (ERITs) in two Canadian hospitals.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on all airway management procedures in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients performed by ERITs at two academic hospitals between 3 April and 17 June 2020. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of periprocedural adverse events (hypoxemia, hypotension, and cardiac arrest within 15 min of intubation) and first-attempt intubation success rate. Secondary outcomes included number of intubation attempts, device used to achieve successful airway management, and adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols.

RESULTS

During the study period, 123 patients were assessed for airway management, with 117 patients receiving airway interventions performed by the ERIT. The first-attempt success rate for intubation was 92%, and a videolaryngoscope was the final successful device in 93% of procedures. Hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation [SpO₂] < 90%) occurred in 28 patients (24%) and severe hypoxemia (SpO₂ < 70%) occurred in ten patients (9%). Hypotension (systolic blood pressure [SBP] < 90 mm Hg) occurred in 37 patients (32%) and severe hypotension (SBP < 65 mm Hg) in 11 patients (9%). Adherence to recommended PPE use among providers was high.

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of critically ill patients with respiratory failure requiring time-sensitive airway management, specialized ERIT teams showed high rates of successful airway management with high adherence to PPE use. Hypoxemia and hemodynamic instability were common and should be anticipated within the first 15 min following intubation.

STUDY REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04689724); registered 30 December 2020.

Lessons from COVID-19: A reflection on the strengths and weakness of early consensus recommendations for pediatric difficult airway management during a respiratory viral pandemic using a modified Delphi method

BACKGROUND

The authors recognized a gap in existing guidelines and convened a modified Delphi process to address novel issues in pediatric difficult airway management raised by the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

The Pediatric Difficult Intubation Collaborative, a working group of the Society for Pediatric Anesthesia, assembled an international panel to reach consensus recommendations on pediatric difficult airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic using a modified Delphi method. We reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of this process and ways care has changed as knowledge and experience have grown over the course of the pandemic.

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Delphi panel recommends against moving away from the operating room solely for the purpose of having a negative pressure environment. The Delphi panel recommends supplying supplemental oxygen and using videolaryngoscopy during anticipated difficult airway management. Direct laryngoscopy is not recommended. If the patient meets extubation criteria, extubate in the OR, awake, at the end of the procedure.

REFLECTION

These recommendations remain valuable guidance in caring for children with anticipated difficult airways and infectious respiratory pathology when reviewed in light of our growing knowledge and experience with COVID-19. The panel initially recommended minimizing involvement of additional people and trainees and minimizing techniques associated with aerosolization of viral particles. The demonstrated effectiveness of PPE and vaccination at reducing the risk of exposure and infection to clinicians managing the airway makes these recommendations less relevant for COVID-19. They would likely be important initial steps in the face of novel respiratory viral pathogens.

CONCLUSIONS

The consensus process cannot and should not replace evidence-based guidelines; however, it is encouraging to see that the panel's recommendations have held up well as scientific knowledge and clinical experience have grown.

Thoracic Anesthesia during the COVID-19 Pandemic: 2021 Updated Recommendations by the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EACTAIC) Thoracic Subspecialty Committee

The novel coronavirus pandemic has radically changed the landscape of normal surgical practice. Lifesaving cancer surgery, however, remains a clinical priority, and there is an increasing need to fully define the optimal oncologic management of patients with varying stages of lung cancer, allowing prioritization of which thoracic procedures should be performed in the current era. Healthcare providers and managers should not ignore the risk of a bimodal peak of mortality in patients with lung cancer; an imminent spike due to mortality from acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, and a secondary peak reflecting an excess of cancer-related mortality among patients whose treatments were deemed less urgent, delayed, or cancelled.

The European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Thoracic Anesthesia Subspecialty group has considered these challenges and developed an updated set of expert recommendations concerning the infectious period, timing of surgery, vaccination, preoperative screening and evaluation, airway management, and ventilation of thoracic surgical patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Practice, Outcomes, and Complications of Emergent Endotracheal Intubation by Critical Care Practitioners During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background

For patients with COVID-19 who undergo emergency endotracheal intubation, data are limited regarding the practice, outcomes, and complications of this procedure.

Research Question

For patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency endotracheal intubation, how do the procedural techniques, the incidence of first-pass success, and the complications associated with the procedure compare with intubations of critically ill patients before the COVID-19 pandemic?

Study Design and Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of adult patients with COVID-19 at Montefiore Medical Center who underwent first-time endotracheal intubation by critical care physicians between July 19, 2019, and May 1, 2020. The first COVID-19 patient was admitted to our institution on March 11, 2020; patients admitted before this date are designated the prepandemic cohort. Descriptive statistics were used to compare groups. A Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables. For continuous variables, a two-tailed Student t test was used for parametric variables or a Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for nonparametric variables.

Results

One thousand two hundred sixty intubations met inclusion criteria (782 prepandemic cohort, 478 pandemic cohort). Patients during the pandemic were more likely to be intubated for hypoxemic respiratory failure (72.6% vs 28.1%; P < .01). During the pandemic, operators were more likely to use video laryngoscopy (89.4% vs 53.3%; P < .01) and neuromuscular blocking agents (86.0% vs 46.2%; P < .01). First-pass success was higher during the pandemic period (94.6% vs 82.9%; P < .01). The rate of associated complications was higher during the pandemic (29.5% vs 15.2%; P < .01), a finding driven by a higher rate of hypoxemia during or immediately after the procedure (25.7% vs 8.2%; P < .01).

Interpretation

Video laryngoscopy and neuromuscular blockade were used increasingly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite a higher rate of first-pass success during the pandemic, the incidence of complications associated with the procedure was higher.