Success and Time to Oxygen Delivery for Scalpel-Finger-Cannula and Scalpel-Finger-Bougie Front-of-Neck Access: A Randomized Crossover Study With a Simulated "Can't Intubate, Can't Oxygenate" Scenario in a Manikin Model With Impalpable Neck Anatomy

National survey on the current status of airway management in China

Apparently, understanding airway management status may help to reduce risk and improve clinical practice. Given these facts, our team conducted a second survey on the current status of airway management for mainland China following our 2016 national airway survey. The national survey was conducted from November 7 to November 28, 2022. An electronic survey was sent to the New Youth Anesthesia Forum, where Chinese anesthesiologists completed the questionnaire via WeChat. A total of 3783 respondents completed the survey, with a response rate of 72.14%. So far, in 2022, 34.84% of anesthesiologists canceled or delayed surgery at least once due to difficult airway. For the anticipated difficult airway management, 66.11% of physicians would choose awake intubation under sedation and topical anesthesia, while the percentage seeking help has decreased compared to the 2016 survey. When encountering an emergency, 74.20% of respondents prefer to use the needle cricothyrotomy, albeit less than a quarter have actually performed it. Anesthesiologists with difficult airway training experience reached 72.96%, with a significant difference in participation between participants in Tier 3 hospitals and those in other levels of hospitals (P < 0.001). The videolaryngoscope, laryngeal mask, and flexible intubation scope were equipped at 97.18%, 95.96%, and 62.89%, respectively. Additionally, the percentage of brain damage or death caused by difficult airways was significantly decreased. The study may be the best reference for understanding the current status of airway management in China, revealing the current advancements and deficiencies. The future focus of airway management remains on training and education.

Impact of airway devices and emergency airway techniques characteristics on airway adverse events in mainland China: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Novel airway devices are becoming widely available, yet it is unclear whether the techniques or preferences of airway practitioners for airway management have been impacted. Given these facts, a cross-sectional study of the current status of airway management in mainland China was conducted and compared with previous survey findings.

METHODS

The national survey was conducted from November 7th to November 28th, 2022. An electronic survey was sent to the New Youth Anesthesia Forum to examine the availability of airway devices, preference for front-of-neck access (FONA) techniques, the incidence of adverse airway events, and the status of airway management training.

RESULTS

Questionnaires were completed by 3783 respondents, with a response rate of 72.14%. So far, the availability of optical airway devices has improved dramatically, with the availability of videolaryngoscopes reaching 97.18%. When encountering "cannot intubate, cannot ventilate" (CICV) scenarios, the majority of respondents would prefer needle cricothyrotomy to establish FONA. However, less than a quarter of respondents had actually performed it. Moreover, the incidence of airway adverse events from 2016 to 2022 was 11.48%, of which 5.13% were brain damage or death. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the ability to perform FONA techniques (odds ratio [OR] 0.23, 95% CI: 0.16, 0.32; P<0.001) and the availability of difficult airway management carts or kits (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41, 0.85; P=0.005) were associated with a lower incidence of airway adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Optical airway devices can overcome some of the challenges posed by difficult airways, yet the CICV scenario remains a major obstacle. The future focus of airway management should be training, particularly for complicated emergency airway techniques.

Simulation in airway management teaching and training

There is a gradual shift in training and teaching methods in the medical field. We are slowly moving from the traditional model and adopting active learning methods like simulation-based training. Airway management is an essential clinical skill for any anaesthesiologist, and a trained anaesthesiologist must perform quick and definitive airway management using various techniques. Airway simulations have been used for the past few decades. It ensures active involvement, upgrading the trainees' airway management knowledge and skills, including basic airway skills, invasive procedures, and difficult clinical scenarios. Trainees also learn non-technical skills such as communication, teamwork, and coordination. A wide range of airway simulators are available. However, texture surface characteristics vary from one type to another. The simulation-based airway management training requires availability, understanding, faculty development, and a structured curriculum for effective delivery. This article explored the available evidence on simulation-based airway management teaching and training.

Scalpel cricothyrotomy versus punctured cricothyrotomy in the context of the CICO crisis. A systematic review and Meta-analysis

IMPORTANCE

The preferential use of a scalpel (SCT) or puncture techniques (PCT) for cricothyrotomy remains a controversial topic.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing puncture cricothyrotomy with scalpel cricothyrotomy using overall success rate, first-time success rate, and time taken to perform the procedure as the primary outcome together with complications as a secondary outcome.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Pubmed databases, EMBASE databases, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1980 to October 2022.

FINDINGS

A total of 32 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. It also showed that PCT was close to SCT in terms of overall success rate (82.2% vs. 82.6%, Odd Ratios OR = 0.91, [95%CI: 0.52-1.58], p = 0.74) as well as first-performance success rate (62.9% vs. 65.3%, OR = 0.52, [0.22-1.25], p = 0.15). PCT does not compare favorably with SCT in terms of required time for the procedure (the mean time required for PCT versus SCT incision in the intervention groups was 0.34 standard deviations higher (Mean Difference MD = 17.12, [3.37-30.87], p = 0.01) as well as complications (21.4% vs. 15.1%, Relative Risk RR = 1.49, [0.80-2.77], p = 0.21).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The results show that SCT has an advantage over PCT in terms of time required for the procedure, while there is no difference in overall success rate, first-time success rate after training, and complications. The superiority of SCT may be the result of fewer and more reliable procedural steps. However, the level of evidence is low (GRADE).