Flexible bronchoscopic intubation through a supraglottic airway device: An evaluation of consultant anaesthetist performance.

BACKGROUND: Few clinical studies investigate technical skill performance in experienced clinicians. METHODS: We undertook a prospective observational study evaluating procedural skill competence in consultant anaesthetists who performed flexible bronchoscopic intubation (FBI) under continuous ventilation through a second-generation supraglottic airway device (SAD). Airway management was recorded on video and performance evaluated independently by three external assessors. We included 100 adult patients undergoing airway management by 25 anaesthetist specialists, each performing four intubations. We used an Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills-inspired global rating scale as primary outcome. Further, we assessed the overall pass rate (proportion of cases where the average of assessors' evaluation for every domain scored ≥3); the progression in the global rating scale score; time to intubation; self-reported procedural confidence; and pass rate from the first to the fourth airway procedure. RESULTS: Overall median global rating scale score was 29.7 (interquartile range 26.0-32.7 [range 16.7-37.7]. At least one global rating scale domain was deemed 'not competent' (one or more domains in the evaluation was scored <3) in 30% of cases of airway management, thus the pass rate was 70% (95% CI 60%-78%). After adjusting for multiple testing, we found a statistically significant difference between the first and fourth case of airway management regarding time to intubation (p = .006), but no difference in global rating scale score (p = .018); self-reported confidence before the procedure (p = .014); or pass rate (p = .109). CONCLUSION: Consultant anaesthetists had a median global rating scale score of 29.7 when using a SAD as conduit for FBI. However, despite reporting high procedural confidence, at least one global rating scale domain was deemed 'not competent' in 30% of cases, which indicates a clear potential for improvement of skill competence among professionals.

AuraGain™ versus i-gel™ for bronchoscopic intubation under continuous oxygenation: A randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: After failed mask ventilation and tracheal intubation, guidelines issued by the Difficult Airway Society recommend placing a second generation supraglottic airway device to secure oxygenation. Ultimately, a secure airway can be obtained by tracheal intubation through the supraglottic airway device using a bronchoscope. In this randomised trial, we compared the AuraGain™ with the i-gel™ as conduit for bronchoscopic intubation under continuous oxygenation performed by a group of anaesthesiologists with variable experience in a general population of patients. METHOD: We randomised one hundred patients who were equally allocated to flexible bronchoscopic intubation through the i-gel™ or the AuraGain™. In a random order, 25 anaesthesiologists each performed four intubations, two using the i-gel™ and two using the AuraGain™. Our primary outcome was 'total time for airway management'; i.e. total time from manually reaching the SAD to successful FBI confirmed at the end of the first inspiratory downstroke on the capnography curve. RESULTS: In total, 87% (95% CI, 79%-92%) of the patients were successfully intubated through the allocated supraglottic airway device. There was no difference in total time for airway management between the i-gel™ and the AuraGain™ (199 vs. 227 s, p = .076). However, there was a difference in time for placement of the i-gel™, compared to the AuraGain™, (37 vs. 54 s, p < .001). There were nine failed intubations in the AuraGain™ group compared to four in the i-gel™ group (p = .147). CONCLUSION: We found no difference in total time for airway management between using the i-gel™ and using the AuraGain™.