A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during supraglottic airway insertion and removal

Airway and respiratory complications during anaesthesia and associated with peri-operative cardiac arrest as reported to the 7th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists

The 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists studied complications of the airway and respiratory system during anaesthesia care including peri-operative cardiac arrest. Among 24,721 surveyed cases, airway and respiratory complications occurred commonly (n = 421 and n = 264, respectively). The most common airway complications were: laryngospasm (157, 37%); airway failure (125, 30%); and aspiration (27, 6%). Emergency front of neck airway was rare (1 in 8370, 95%CI 1 in 2296-30,519). The most common respiratory complications were: severe ventilation difficulty (97, 37%); hyper/hypocapnia (63, 24%); and hypoxaemia (62, 23%). Among 881 reports to NAP7 and 358 deaths, airway and respiratory complications accounted for 113 (13%) peri-operative cardiac arrests and 32 (9%) deaths, with hypoxaemia as the most common primary cause. Airway and respiratory cases had higher and lower survival rates than other causes of cardiac arrest, respectively. Patients with obesity, young children (particularly infants) and out-of-hours care were overrepresented in reports. There were six cases of unrecognised oesophageal intubation with three resulting in cardiac arrest. Of these cases, failure to correctly interpret capnography was a recurrent theme. Cases of emergency front of neck airway (6, approximately 1 in 450,000) and pulmonary aspiration (11, approximately 1 in 25,000) leading to cardiac arrest were rare. Overall, these data, while distinct from the 4th National Audit Project, suggest that airway management is likely to have become safer in the last decade, despite the surgical population having become more challenging for anaesthetists.

A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation

It is unclear if cardiopulmonary resuscitation is an aerosol-generating procedure and whether this poses a risk of airborne disease transmission to healthcare workers and bystanders. Use of airborne transmission precautions during cardiopulmonary resuscitation may confer rescuer protection but risks patient harm due to delays in commencing treatment. To quantify the risk of respiratory aerosol generation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation in humans, we conducted an aerosol monitoring study during out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. Exhaled aerosol was recorded using an optical particle sizer spectrometer connected to the breathing system. Aerosol produced during resuscitation was compared with that produced by control participants under general anaesthesia ventilated with an equivalent respiratory pattern to cardiopulmonary resuscitation. A porcine cardiac arrest model was used to determine the independent contributions of ventilatory breaths, chest compressions and external cardiac defibrillation to aerosol generation. Time-series analysis of participants with cardiac arrest (n = 18) demonstrated a repeating waveform of respiratory aerosol that mapped to specific components of resuscitation. Very high peak aerosol concentrations were generated during ventilation of participants with cardiac arrest with median (IQR [range]) 17,926 (5546-59,209 [1523-242,648]) particles.l-1 , which were 24-fold greater than in control participants under general anaesthesia (744 (309-2106 [23-9099]) particles.l-1 , p < 0.001, n = 16). A substantial rise in aerosol also occurred with cardiac defibrillation and chest compressions. In a complimentary porcine model of cardiac arrest, aerosol recordings showed a strikingly similar profile to the human data. Time-averaged aerosol concentrations during ventilation were approximately 270-fold higher than before cardiac arrest (19,410 (2307-41,017 [104-136,025]) vs. 72 (41-136 [23-268]) particles.l-1 , p = 0.008). The porcine model also confirmed that both defibrillation and chest compressions generate high concentrations of aerosol independent of, but synergistic with, ventilation. In conclusion, multiple components of cardiopulmonary resuscitation generate high concentrations of respiratory aerosol. We recommend that airborne transmission precautions are warranted in the setting of high-risk pathogens, until the airway is secured with an airway device and breathing system with a filter.

Aerosol generation with the use of positive pressure ventilation via supraglottic airway devices: an observational study

The amount of aerosol generation associated with the use of positive pressure ventilation via a supraglottic airway device has not been quantified. We conducted a two-group, two-centre, prospective cohort study in which we recruited 21 low-risk adult patients scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia with second-generation supraglottic airway devices. An optical particle sizer and an isokinetic sampling probe were used to record particle concentrations per second at different size distributions (0.3-10 μm) during use as well as baseline levels during two common activities (conversation and coughing). There was a median (IQR [range]) peak increase of 2.8 (1.5-4.5 [1-28.1]) and 4.1 (2.0-7.1 [1-18.2]) times background concentrations during SAD insertion and removal. Most of the particles generated during supraglottic airway insertion (85.0%) and removal (85.3%) were < 3 μm diameter. Median (IQR [range]) aerosol concentration generated by insertion (1.1 (0.6-5.1 [0.2-22.3]) particles.cm^-3 ) and removal (2.1 (0.5-3.0 [0.1-18.9]) particles.cm^-3 ) of SADs were significantly lower than those produced during continuous talking (44.5 (28.3-70.5 [2.0-134.5]) particles.cm^-3 ) and coughing (141.0 (98.3-202.8 [4.0-296.5]) particles.cm^-3 ) (p < 0.001). The aerosol levels produced were similar with the two devices. The proportion of easily inhaled and small particles (<1 μm) produced during insertion (57.5%) and removal (57.5%) was much lower than during talking (99.1%) and coughing (99.6%). These results suggest that the use of supraglottic airway devices in low-risk patients, even with positive pressure ventilation, generates fewer aerosols than speaking and coughing in awake patients.

Use of portable air purifiers to reduce aerosols in hospital settings and cut down the clinical backlog

SARS-CoV-2 has severely affected capacity in the National Health Service (NHS), and waiting lists are markedly increasing due to downtime of up to 50 min between patient consultations/procedures, to reduce the risk of infection. Ventilation accelerates this air cleaning, but retroactively installing built-in mechanical ventilation is often cost-prohibitive. We investigated the effect of using portable air cleaners (PAC), a low-energy and low-cost alternative, to reduce the concentration of aerosols in typical patient consultation/procedure environments. The experimental setup consisted of an aerosol generator, which mimicked the subject affected by SARS-CoV-19, and an aerosol detector, representing a subject who could potentially contract SARS-CoV-19. Experiments of aerosol dispersion and clearing were undertaken in situ in a variety of rooms with two different types of PAC in various combinations and positions. Correct use of PAC can reduce the clearance half-life of aerosols by 82% compared to the same indoor-environment without any ventilation, and at a broadly equivalent rate to built-in mechanical ventilation. In addition, the highest level of aerosol concentration measured when using PAC remains at least 46% lower than that when no mitigation is used, even if the PAC's operation is impeded due to placement under a table. The use of PAC leads to significant reductions in the level of aerosol concentration, associated with transmission of droplet-based airborne diseases. This could enable NHS departments to reduce the downtime between consultations/procedures.

Re-evaluating our language when reducing risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to healthcare workers: Time to rethink the term, “aerosol-generating procedures”

The term, "aerosol-generating procedures” (AGPs), was proposed during the prior SARS-CoV-1 epidemic in order to maximise healthcare worker and patient protection. The concept of AGPs has since expanded to include routine therapeutic processes such as various modes of oxygen delivery and non-invasive ventilation modalities. Evidence gained during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has brought into question the concept of AGPs with regard to intubation, airway management, non-invasive ventilation and high flow nasal oxygen delivery. Although encounters where these procedures occur may still be associated with increased risk of infectious transmission, this is a function of the clinical context and not because the procedure itself is aerosol-generating.

Strategies from A Multi-National Sample of Electroconvulsive Therapy (ECT) Services: Managing Anesthesia for ECT during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) is important in the management of severe, treatment-resistant, and life-threatening psychiatric illness. Anesthesia supports the clinical efficacy and tolerability of ECT. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted ECT services, including anesthesia. This study documents strategies for managing ECT anesthesia during the pandemic. Data were collected between March and November 2021, using a mixed-methods, cross-sectional, electronic survey. Clinical directors in ECT services, their delegates, and anesthetists worldwide participated. One hundred and twelve participants provided quantitative responses to the survey. Of these, 23.4% were anesthetists, and the remainder were ECT clinical directors. Most participants were from Australia, New Zealand, North America, and Europe. Most were located in a public hospital, in a metropolitan region, and in a ‘medium/high-risk’ COVID-19 hotspot. Half of the participants reported their services made changes to ECT anesthetic technique during the pandemic. Services introduced strategies associated with anesthetic induction, ventilation, use of laryngeal mask airways, staffing, medications, plastic barriers to separate staff from patients, and the location of extubation and recovery. This is the first multi-national, mixed-methods study to investigate ECT anesthesia practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. The results are vital to inform practice during the next waves of COVID-19 infection, ensuring patients continue to receive ECT.

Anaesthetists' current practice and perceptions of aerosol-generating procedures: a mixed-methods study

The evidence base surrounding the transmission risk of 'aerosol-generating procedures' has evolved primarily through quantification of aerosol concentrations during clinical practice. Consequently, infection prevention and control guidelines are undergoing continual reassessment. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the perceptions of practicing anaesthetists regarding aerosol-generating procedures. An online survey was distributed to the Membership Engagement Group of the Royal College of Anaesthetists during November 2021. The survey included five clinical scenarios to identify the personal approach of respondents to precautions, their hospital's policies and the associated impact on healthcare provision. A purposive sample was selected for interviews to explore the reasoning behind their perceptions and behaviours in greater depth. A total of 333 survey responses were analysed quantitatively. Transcripts from 18 interviews were coded and analysed thematically. The sample was broadly representative of the UK anaesthetic workforce. Most respondents and their hospitals were aware of, supported and adhered to UK guidance. However, there were examples of substantial divergence from these guidelines at both individual and hospital level. For example, 40 (12%) requested respiratory protective equipment and 63 (20%) worked in hospitals that required it to be worn whilst performing tracheal intubation in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. Additionally, 173 (52%) wore respiratory protective equipment whilst inserting supraglottic airway devices. Regarding the use of respiratory protective equipment and fallow times in the operating theatre: 305 (92%) perceived reduced efficiency; 376 (83%) perceived a negative impact on teamworking; 201 (64%) were worried about environmental impact; and 255 (77%) reported significant problems with communication. However, 269 (63%) felt the negative impacts of respiratory protection equipment were appropriately balanced against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Attitudes were polarised about the prospect of moving away from using respiratory protective equipment. Participants' perceived risk from COVID-19 correlated with concern regarding stepdown (Spearman's test, R = 0.36, p < 0.001). Attitudes towards aerosol-generating procedures and the need for respiratory protective equipment are evolving and this information can be used to inform strategies to facilitate successful adoption of revised guidelines.

Quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation from upper airway suctioning assessed during tracheal intubation and extubation sequences in anaesthetized patients

BACKGROUND

Open respiratory suctioning is defined as an aerosol generating procedure (AGP). Laryngopharyngeal suctioning, used to clear secretions during anaesthesia, is widely managed as an AGP. However, it is uncertain whether upper airway suctioning should be designated as an AGP due to the lack of both aerosol and epidemiological evidence.

AIM

To assess the relative risk of aerosol generation by upper airway suctioning during tracheal intubation and extubation in anaesthetized patients.

METHODS

This prospective environmental monitoring study was undertaken in an ultraclean operating theatre setting to assay aerosol concentrations during intubation and extubation sequences, including upper airway suctioning, for patients undergoing surgery (N=19). An optical particle sizer (particle size 0.3-10 μm) sampled aerosol 20 cm above the patient's mouth. Baseline recordings (background, tidal breathing and volitional coughs) were followed by intravenous induction of anaesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Four periods of laryngopharyngeal suctioning were performed with a Yankauer sucker: pre-laryngoscopy, post-intubation, pre-extubation and post-extubation.

FINDINGS

Aerosol was reliably detected {median 65 [interquartile range (IQR) 39-259] particles/L} above background [median 4.8 (IQR 1-7) particles/L, P<0.0001] when sampling in close proximity to the patient's mouth during tidal breathing. Upper airway suctioning was associated with a much lower average aerosol concentration than breathing [median 6.0 (IQR 0-12) particles/L, P=0.0007], and was indistinguishable from background (P>0.99). Peak aerosol concentrations recorded during suctioning [median 45 (IQR 30-75) particles/L] were much lower than during volitional coughs [median 1520 (IQR 600-4363) particles/L, P<0.0001] and tidal breathing [median 540 (IQR 300-1826) particles/L, P<0.0001].

CONCLUSION

Upper airway suctioning during airway management was not associated with a higher aerosol concentration compared with background, and was associated with a much lower aerosol concentration compared with breathing and coughing. Upper airway suctioning should not be designated as a high-risk AGP.

Complications associated with paediatric airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international, multicentre, observational study

Respiratory adverse events in adults with COVID-19 undergoing general anaesthesia can be life-threatening. However, there remains a knowledge gap about respiratory adverse events in children with COVID-19. We created an international observational registry to collect airway management outcomes in children with COVID-19 who were having a general anaesthetic. We hypothesised that children with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 would experience more hypoxaemia and complications than those without. Between 3 April 2020 and 1 November 2020, 78 international centres participated. In phase 1, centres collected outcomes on all children (age ≤ 18 y) having a general anaesthetic for 2 consecutive weeks. In phase 2, centres recorded outcomes for children with test-confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (based on symptoms) having a general anaesthetic. We did not study children whose tracheas were already intubated. The primary outcome was the incidence of hypoxaemia during airway management. Secondary outcomes included: incidence of other complications; and first-pass success rate for tracheal intubation. In total, 7896 children were analysed (7567 COVID-19 negative and 329 confirmed or presumed COVID-19 positive). The incidence of hypoxaemia during airway management was greater in children who were COVID-19 positive (24 out of 329 (7%) vs. 214 out of 7567 (3%); OR 2.70 (95%CI 1.70-4.10)). Children who had symptoms of COVID-19 had a higher incidence of hypoxaemia compared with those who were asymptomatic (9 out of 51 (19%) vs. 14 out of 258 (5%), respectively; OR 3.7 (95%CI 1.5-9.1)). Children with confirmed or presumed COVID-19 have an increased risk of hypoxaemia during airway management in conjunction with general anaesthesia.

Quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during manual facemask ventilation

Manual facemask ventilation, a core component of elective and emergency airway management, is classified as an aerosol-generating procedure. This designation is based on one epidemiological study suggesting an association between facemask ventilation and transmission during the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in 2003. There is no direct evidence to indicate whether facemask ventilation is a high-risk procedure for aerosol generation. We conducted aerosol monitoring during routine facemask ventilation and facemask ventilation with an intentionally generated leak in anaesthetised patients. Recordings were made in ultraclean operating theatres and compared against the aerosol generated by tidal breathing and cough manoeuvres. Respiratory aerosol from tidal breathing in 11 patients was reliably detected above the very low background particle concentrations with median [IQR (range)] particle counts of 191 (77-486 [4-1313]) and 2 (1-5 [0-13]) particles.l-1 , respectively, p = 0.002. The median (IQR [range]) aerosol concentration detected during facemask ventilation without a leak (3 (0-9 [0-43]) particles.l-1 ) and with an intentional leak (11 (7-26 [1-62]) particles.l-1 ) was 64-fold (p = 0.001) and 17-fold (p = 0.002) lower than that of tidal breathing, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) peak particle concentration during facemask ventilation both without a leak (60 (0-60 [0-120]) particles.l-1 ) and with a leak (120 (60-180 [60-480]) particles.l-1 ) were 20-fold (p = 0.002) and 10-fold (0.001) lower than a cough (1260 (800-3242 [100-3682]) particles.l-1 ), respectively. This study demonstrates that facemask ventilation, even when performed with an intentional leak, does not generate high levels of bioaerosol. On the basis of this evidence, we argue facemask ventilation should not be considered an aerosol-generating procedure.