Global outcomes, surgical teams and COVID-19 pandemic: Will the same objectives of global surgery persist?

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.

/pdf/emergent-surgical-airway-skills-time-to-re-evaluate-the-eij0ydvk.pdf

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

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

Difficult airway management continues to adversely affect patient care and clinical outcomes and is poorly predicted. Previous difficult airway management is the most accurate predictor of future difficulty. The Difficult Airway Society initiated a national airway database to allow clinicians to access details of previous difficult airway episodes in patients issued with a difficult airway alert card. We aimed to analyse this database, reporting patient characteristics, airway management and patient outcomes. We included all living adult patients reported in the first 5 years of the database (n = 675). Clinical airway assessment was reported in 634 (94%) patients, with three or more parameters assessed in 488 (72%). A history of difficult airway was known in 136 (20%) patients and difficult airway management was anticipated in 391 (58%). In all, 75 (11%) patients had an airway‐related critical incident, with 1 in 29 being awoken from anaesthesia, 1 in 34 requiring unplanned or prolonged stay in the intensive care unit and 1 in 225 needing an emergency front‐of‐neck airway or had a cardiac arrest/peri‐arrest episode. Airway‐related critical incidents were associated with out‐of‐hours airway management, but no other associations were apparent. Our data report the first analysis of a national difficult airway database, finding that unanticipated difficult airway management continues to occur despite airway assessment, and the rate of critical incidents in this cohort of patients is high. This database has the potential to improve airway management for patients in the future.

Analysis of a national difficult airway database

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.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/anae.15851

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

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success. RESULTS: Successful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported-an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non-rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P < 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P = 0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P = 0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19.

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

Introduction Diabetes is common (about 20 million patients in Europe) and patients with diabetes have more surgical interventions than the general population. There are plausible pathophysiological and clinical mechanisms suggesting that patients with diabetes are at an increased risk of postoperative complications. When postoperative complications occur in the general population, they increase major adverse events and subsequently increase 1-year mortality. This is likely to be worse in patients with diabetes. There is variation in practice guidelines in different countries in the perioperative management of patients with diabetes undergoing major surgery and whether this may affect postoperative outcome has not been investigated on a large scale. Neither is it known whether different strata of preoperative glycaemic control affects outcome. Methods and analysis A prospective, observational, international, multicentre cohort study, recruiting 5000 patients with diabetes undergoing elective or emergency surgery in at least n=50 centres. Inclusion criteria are any patient with diabetes undergoing surgery under any substantive anaesthetic technique. Exclusion criteria are not being a confirmed diabetic patient and patients with diabetes undergoing procedures under monitored sedation or local anaesthetic infiltration only. Follow-up duration is 30 days after surgery. Primary outcome is days at home at 30 days. Secondary outcomes are Comprehensive Complications Index, Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) score on Day 1 postoperatively, 30-day mortality, length of hospital stay and incidence of specific major adverse events (Myocardial Infarction (MI), Myocardial Injury after Non-cardiac Surgery (MINS), Acute Kidney Injury (AKI), Postoperative Pulmonary Complications (PPC), Cerebrovascular Accident (CVA), Pulmonary Embolism (PE), DVT, surgical site infection, postoperative pulmonary infection). Tertiary outcomes include time to resumption of normal diabetes therapy, incidence of diabetic ketoacidosis or hypoglycaemia, incidence and duration of use of intravenous insulin infusion therapy and change in diabetic management at 30 days. Ethics and dissemination This study will adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (amendment 2013) by the World Medical Association and the ICH-Good Clinical Practice (GCP) Guidelines E6(R2). Specific national and local regulatory authority requirements will be followed as applicable. Ethical approval has been granted by the Institutional Review Board of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland (Reference: 1/378/2167). As enrolment for this study is ongoing, ethical approval from additional centres is being added continuously. The main results of Management and Outcomes of Perioperative Care among European Diabetic Patients and its substudies will be published in peer-reviewed international medical journals and presented at Euroanaesthesia congress and other international and national meetings. Trial registration number NCT04511312.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/11/9/e044394.full.pdf

Mark Coburn

Papers

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

Protocol for a prospective, international cohort study on the Management and Outcomes of Perioperative Care among European Diabetic Patients (MOPED)