Updated guideline on equipment to manage difficult airways: Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists.

The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) recently reviewed and updated the guideline on equipment to manage a difficult airway. An ANZCA-established document development group, which included representatives from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand, performed the review, which is based on expert consensus, an extensive literature review, and bi-nationwide consultation. The guideline (PG56(A) 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/02fe1a4c-14f0-4ad1-8337-c281d26bfa17/PS56-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways) is accompanied by a detailed background paper (PG56(A)BP 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/9ef4cd97-2f02-47fe-a63a-9f74fa7c68ac/PG56(A)BP-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways-Background-Paper), from which the current recommendations are reproduced on behalf of, and with the permission of, ANZCA. The updated 2021 guideline replaces the 2012 version and aims to provide an updated, objective, informed, transparent, and evidence-based review of equipment to manage difficult airways.

P2/N95 respirators & surgical masks to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection: Effectiveness & adverse effects.

BACKGROUND: Millions of people have acquired and died from SARS-CoV-2 infection during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers (HCWs) are required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE), including surgical masks and P2/N95 respirators, to prevent infection while treating patients. However, the comparative effectiveness of respirators and masks in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection and the likelihood of experiencing adverse events (AEs) with wear are unclear. METHODS: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Europe PMC and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register to 14 June 2021. A systematic review of comparative epidemiological studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infection or AE incidence in HCWs wearing P2/N95 (or equivalent) respirators and surgical masks was performed. Article screening, risk of bias assessment and data extraction were duplicated. Meta-analysis of extracted data was carried out in RevMan. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies were included, with most having high risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference in respirator or surgical mask effectiveness in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 0.85, [95%CI 0.72, 1.01]). Healthcare workers experienced significantly more headaches (OR 2.62, [95%CI 1.18, 5.81]), respiratory distress (OR 4.21, [95%CI 1.46, 12.13]), facial irritation (OR 1.80, [95%CI 1.03, 3.14]) and pressure-related injuries (OR 4.39, [95%CI 2.37, 8.15]) when wearing respirators compared to surgical masks. CONCLUSION: The existing epidemiological evidence does not enable definitive assessment of the effectiveness of respirators compared to surgical masks in preventing infection. Healthcare workers wearing respirators may be more likely to experience AEs. Effective mitigation strategies are important to ensure the uptake and correct use of respirators by HCWs.

Current status of variations in in-hospital cardiac arrest call numbers in Japan: a nationwide survey.

The use of standardized internal hospital phone numbers for cardiac arrest is advocated in Europe. We evaluated the current status of variations in medical emergency call numbers for in-hospital patients in Japan and whether anesthesiologists would approve a standardized number. From June 2018 to August 2018, a questionnaire survey was mailed to anesthesiologists in 1373 Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (JSA)-accredited hospitals. The basis for opinions on using a standardized cardiac arrest call number in all Japanese hospitals was evaluated. Of 1373 facilities (response rate, 58%, n = 800), 741/776 (96%) reported a response system for in-hospital cardiac arrest; 638/710 (90%) responded to cardiac arrest through loudspeaker broadcast, audible to both patients and staff; 346/777 (48%) used a number between one and five digits long, four-digit numbers being the most common. Across Japan, 370 different numbers were reported. Only 385/688 (56%) of respondents had the emergency number memorized. Finally, 423/776 (55%) respondents approved standardizing a hospital telephone number for summoning help. Multivariate analysis showed that facilities where the anesthesiologists already memorized the call number were the only reason identified for opposition to the standardization. Although 96% of JSA-accredited hospitals had a response system for in-hospital cardiac arrests, discussions for standardization of a unified number need to be encouraged for improved emergency response.