Laryngoscopy and Tracheal Intubation: Does Use of a Video Laryngoscope Facilitate Both Steps of the Procedure?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of the use of a video laryngoscope versus a direct laryngoscope on each step of emergency intubation: laryngoscopy (step 1) and intubation of the trachea (step 2). METHODS: In a secondary observational analysis of data from 2 multicenter, randomized trials that enrolled critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation but did not control for laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope), we fit mixed-effects logistic regression models examining the 1) the association between laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope) and the Cormack-Lehane grade of view and 2) the interaction between grade of view, laryngoscope type (video laryngoscope vs direct laryngoscope), and the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt. RESULTS: We analyzed 1,786 patients: 467 (26.2%) in the direct laryngoscope group and 1,319 (73.9%) in the video laryngoscope group. The use of a video laryngoscope was associated with an improved grade of view as compared with a direct laryngoscope (adjusted odds ratio for increasingly favorable grade of view 3.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.47 to 3.99). Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 83.2% of patients in the video laryngoscope group and 72.2% of patients in the direct laryngoscope group (absolute difference 11.1%, 95% CI 6.5% to 15.6%). Video laryngoscope use modified the association between grade of view and successful intubation on the first attempt such that intubation on the first attempt was similar between video laryngoscope and direct laryngoscope at a grade 1 view and higher for video laryngoscope than direct laryngoscope at grade 2 to 4 views (P<.001 for interaction term). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, the use of a video laryngoscope was associated both with a better view of the vocal cords and with a higher probability of successfully intubating the trachea when the view of the vocal cords was incomplete in this observational analysis. However, a multicenter, randomized trial directly comparing the effect of a video laryngoscope with a direct laryngoscope on the grade of view, success, and complications is needed.

Evaluation of Minnesota Score in the Allocation of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation During Resource Scarcity.

Background: In this study, we evaluate the previously reported novel Minnesota Score for association with in-hospital mortality and allocation of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome with or without SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study across four extracorporeal membrane oxygenation centers in Minnesota. Logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between the scores and in-hospital mortality, duration of ECMO cannulation, and discharge disposition. Priority groups were established statistically by maximizing the sum of sensitivity and specificity and compared to the previous qualitatively established priority groups. Results: Of 124 patients included in the study, 38% were treated for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome. The median age was 48 years, and 73% were male. The in-hospital mortality rate was 38%. The Minnesota Score was significantly associated with in-hospital mortality only (OR 1.13, p=0.02). Statistically determined cut points were similar to qualitative cut points. SARS-CoV-2 status did not change the findings. Conclusions: In our patient cohort, the Minnesota Score is associated with increased mortality. With further validation, proposed priority groups could be utilized for allocation of ECMO in times of increasing scarcity.

Increasing Mortality in Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Determine the factors associated with mortality in venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) patients with COVID-19 infection and provide an updated report of clinical outcomes for patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19 in Minnesota. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective observational study. SETTING: The four adult Extracorporeal Life Support Organization-certified Centers of Excellence in Minnesota. PATIENTS: A total of 100 patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from March 2020 to May 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was 60-day survival for patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19. Outcomes of patients treated from November 2020 to May 2021(cohort 2) were compared with data from a previous cohort of patients, collected from March 2020 to October 2020 (cohort 1). The data from both cohorts were merged into a single dataset (Combined Cohort). Survival on V-V ECMO due to COVID-19-associated ARDS significantly decreased after October 2020 (63% vs 41%; p = 0.026). The median interval from hospital admission to V-V ECMO cannulation was significantly associated with 60-day mortality (10 d [6-14 d] in nonsurvivors vs 7 d [4-9 d] in survivors; p = 0.001) in the Combined Cohort and was also significantly longer in cohort 2 than cohort 1 (10 d [7-14 d] vs 6 d [4-10 d]; p < 0.001). In the Combined Cohort, the 60-day survival for patients who did not receive steroids was 86% (n = 12) versus 45% (n = 39) for patients who received at least one dose of steroids (p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant increase in mortality for patients treated with V-V ECMO for COVID-19-associated ARDS in cohort 2 compared with cohort 1. Further research is required to determine the cause of the worsening trend in mortality.

Risk Factors of Mortality for Patients Receiving Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Background: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) for select adults with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) cause by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection is a guideline-supported therapy with associated hospital survival of 62%-74%, similar to expected survival with VV-ECMO for other indications. However, ECMO is a resource-heavy intervention, and these patients often require long ECMO runs and prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) care. Identifying factors associated with mortality in VV-ECMO patients with COVID-19 infection can inform the evaluation of ECMO candidates as well as prognostication for those patients on prolonged VV-ECMO. Patients and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study that included all patients who received either VV- or venoarteriovenous (VAV)-ECMO at one of four ECMO Centers of Excellence in the state of Minnesota between March 1, 2020 and November 1, 2020. The primary outcome was 60-day survival. Secondary outcomes were hospital complications, infectious complications, and complications from ECMO. Results: There were 46 patients who met criteria during this study period and 30 survived to 60-day follow-up (65.2%). Prior to cannulation, older patient age (55.5 in non-survivors vs. 49.1 years in survivors; p = 0.03), lower P/F ratio (62.1 vs. 76.2; p = 0.04), and higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (8.1 vs. 6.6; p = 0.02) were identified as risk factors for mortality. After ECMO cannulation, increased mortality was associated with increased number of antibiotic days (25.9 vs. 14.5; p = 0.04), increased number of transfusions (23.9 vs. 9.9; p = 0.03), elevated white blood cell (WBC) count at post-ECMO days one through three, elevated D-dimer at post-ECMO day 21-27, and decreased platelet count from post-ECMO days 14 and onward using univariable analysis. Conclusions: Multiple markers of infection including leukocytosis, thrombocytopenia, and increased antibiotic days are associated with increased mortality in patients placed on VV-ECMO for COVID-19 infection and subsequent ARDS. Knowledge of these factors may assist with determining appropriate candidates for this limited resource as well as direct goals of care in prolonged ECMO courses.

The Use of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in COVID-19 Infection: One Region's Comprehensive Experience.

Severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unresponsive to conventional intensive care unit (ICU) management is an accepted indication for venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V-V ECMO) support. The frequency with which patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia are selected for V-V ECMO has not been described. This was a cohort study including all patients placed on either V-V ECMO or venoarteriovenous ECMO at the four adult ECMO Centers of Excellence. Primary outcomes evaluated were survival to decannulation from the ECMO circuit, survival to discharge, and 60-day survival. Secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, length of ECMO cannulation, and length of intubation. During the study period, which corresponded to the first surge in COVID-19 hospitalizations in Minnesota, 35 patients with ARDS were selected for V-V ECMO support out of 1,849 adult ICU patients with COVID-19 infection in the state (1.9% incidence; 95% CI, 1.3-2.6%). This represents 46 (95% CI, 34-61) expected V-V ECMO patients per 100,000 confirmed positive cases of COVID-19. Twenty-six of the 35 patients (74.3%) supported with V-V ECMO survived to 60-day post-ECMO decannulation. Recent studies have demonstrated ongoing success rescuing patients with severe ARDS in COVID-19 infection. Our data add to the support of ECMO and the consideration for encouraging cooperation among regional ECMO centers to ensure access to this highest level of care. Finally, by evaluating all the patients of a single region, we estimate overall need for this resource intensive intervention based on the overall number of COVID-19 cases and ICU admissions.