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

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.

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.

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.

Ming Hua Cheng

Papers

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