Article contents
Emergency Airway Management in a Simulation of Highly Contagious Isolated Patients: Both Isolation Strategy and Device Type Matter
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 February 2018
Abstract
To compare 6 airway-management devices in 3 isolation scenarios regarding their effect on airway management: portable isolation unit (PIU), personal protective equipment (PPE), and standard protection measures
In total, 30 anesthesiologists working in emergency medical services performed airway management on mannequins in 3 isolation settings using 6 different airway management devices (in random order): (1) standard Macintosh laryngoscope; (2) Airtraq SP-video-laryngoscope; (3) i-gel; (4) LMA-Fastrach; (5) Ambu fiberoptic-aScope; and (6) Melker cricothyrotomy-set. Each was assessed regarding time-to-ventilate (primary outcome) and rating of difficulty handling the device.
In 86% (standard protection) and 85% (PPE) of attempts, airway management was achieved in <60 seconds, irrespective of the device used. In the PIU setting, only 69% of attempts succeeded within this time frame (P<.05). Median time-to-ventilate was shorter for standard protection (23 seconds) and PPE (25 seconds) compared to the PIU (38 seconds; P<.001). In the PIU setting, the fiberscope took the longest (median, 170 seconds), while i-gel was the quickest (median, 13 seconds). The rating of difficulty (visual analogue scale [VAS], 0–100) differed significantly between the isolation scenarios: Airway management was most difficult with PIU (VAS, 76), followed by PPE (VAS, 35), and standard protection (VAS, 9) (P<.01).
Wearing PPE produced similar times-to-ventilate as standard protection among anesthesiologists, but it was subjectively rated more difficult. The portable isolation unit permitted acceptable times-to-ventilate when excluding fiberscope and cricothyrotomy. Supraglottic airway devices allowed the fastest airway management in all isolation scenarios, thus being highly recommendable if a portable isolation unit is used and emergency airway management becomes necessary.
Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;39:145–151
- Type
- Original Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- © 2018 by The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America. All rights reserved
Footnotes
PREVIOUS PRESENTATION: The results of this study were previously presented, in part, at the Euroanaesthesia Congress (ESA) in London, England, on May XX, 2016, and at the European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM) conference in Vienna, Austria, on May 28 and October 3, 2016.
References
REFERENCES
- 11
- Cited by