Executive Summary of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR) Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management.

The Airway section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guidelines for the integral management of difficult airway in adult patients. This document provides recommendations based on current scientific evidence, theoretical-educational tools and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to the treatment of the airway in the field of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies and prehospital medicine. Its principles are focused on the human factors, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations and optimization in the progression of the application of strategies to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to improve safety and quality of care.

Individualised, perioperative open-lung ventilation strategy during one-lung ventilation (iPROVE-OLV): a multicentre, randomised, controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether individualisation of the perioperative open-lung approach (OLA) to ventilation reduces postoperative pulmonary complications in patients undergoing lung resection. We compared a perioperative individualised OLA (iOLA) ventilation strategy with standard lung-protective ventilation in patients undergoing thoracic surgery with one-lung ventilation. METHODS: This multicentre, randomised controlled trial enrolled patients scheduled for open or video-assisted thoracic surgery using one-lung ventilation in 25 participating hospitals in Spain, Italy, Turkey, Egypt, and Ecuador. Eligible adult patients (age ≥18 years) were randomly assigned to receive iOLA or standard lung-protective ventilation. Eligible patients (stratified by centre) were randomly assigned online by local principal investigators, with an allocation ratio of 1:1. Treatment with iOLA included an alveolar recruitment manoeuvre to 40 cm H2O of end-inspiratory pressure followed by individualised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titrated to best respiratory system compliance, and individualised postoperative respiratory support with high-flow oxygen therapy. Participants allocated to standard lung-protective ventilation received combined intraoperative 4 cm H2O of PEEP and postoperative conventional oxygen therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of severe postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days, including atelectasis requiring bronchoscopy, severe respiratory failure, contralateral pneumothorax, early extubation failure (rescue with continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or reintubation), acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary infection, bronchopleural fistula, and pleural empyema. Due to trial setting, data obtained in the operating and postoperative rooms for routine monitoring were not blinded. At 24 h, data were acquired by an investigator blinded to group allocation. All analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03182062, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Sept 11, 2018, and June 14, 2022, we enrolled 1380 patients, of whom 1308 eligible patients (670 [434 male, 233 female, and three with missing data] assigned to iOLA and 638 [395 male, 237 female, and six with missing data] to standard lung-protective ventilation) were included in the final analysis. The proportion of patients with the composite outcome of severe postoperative pulmonary complications within the first 7 postoperative days was lower in the iOLA group compared with the standard lung-protective ventilation group (40 [6%] vs 97 [15%], relative risk 0·39 [95% CI 0·28 to 0·56]), with an absolute risk difference of -9·23 (95% CI -12·55 to -5·92). Recruitment manoeuvre-related adverse events were reported in five patients. INTERPRETATION: Among patients subjected to lung resection under one-lung ventilation, iOLA was associated with a reduced risk of severe postoperative pulmonary complications when compared with conventional lung-protective ventilation. FUNDING: Instituto de Salud Carlos III and the European Regional Development Funds.

Disinfection of Reusable Laryngoscopes: A Survey about the Clinical Practice in Spain.

Airway device-associated infections resulting from the cross-contamination of reusable laryngoscopes are one of the main causes of healthcare-associated infections. Laryngoscope blades are highly contaminated with various pathogens, including Gram-negative bacilli, which can cause prolonged hospitalization, high morbidity and mortality risks, the development of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms, and significant costs. Despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Society of Anesthesiologists' recommendations, this national survey of 248 Spanish anesthesiologists showed that there is great variability in the processing of reusable laryngoscopes in Spain. Nearly a third of the respondents did not have an institutional disinfection protocol, and 45% of them did not know the disinfection procedure used. Good practices for the prevention and control of cross-contamination can be ensured through compliance with evidence-based guidelines, education of healthcare providers, and audits of clinical practices.

New Devices, Innovative Technologies, and Non-Standard Techniques for Airway Management: A Narrative Review.

A wide range of airway devices and techniques have been created to enhance the safety of airway management. However, airway management remains a challenge. All techniques are susceptible to failure. Therefore, it is necessary to have and know the greatest number of alternatives to treat even the most challenging airway successfully. The aim of this narrative review is to describe some new devices, such as video laryngeal masks, articulated stylets, and non-standard techniques, for laryngeal mask insertion and endotracheal intubation that are not applied in daily practice, but that could be highly effective in overcoming a difficulty related to airway management. Artificial intelligence and 3D technology for airway management are also discussed.

Video laryngeal masks in airway management.

INTRODUCTION: Video laryngeal masks have become alternatives to classical supraglottic airway devices in recent years. This review provides information on the background of these new medical devices, the most popular and widely used video laryngeal masks, their advantages, disadvantages and their main applications in airway management. AREAS COVERED: In this review, the physical differences between video laryngeal masks and second-generation laryngeal mask airways, and their properties in specific clinical settings are discussed. EXPERT COMMENTARY: To limit airway-related morbidity, an optimal position of supraglottic airway devices must be the primary goal. Extensive research has shown that blindly inserted laryngeal mask can be malpositioned in 50% to 80% of the cases. Therefore, blind insertion should be the exception rather than the rule unlike current practice. Video laryngeal mask airways have clear advantages in routine use and in difficult airway management since they allow a vision-guided technique. Henceforth, the properties perceived in clinical practice must be endorsed with quality clinical evidence.

Hemodynamic performance of the Medtronic Mosaic and Perimount Magna aortic bioprostheses: five-year results of a prospectively randomized study.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical outcomes of patients undergoing aortic valve replacement may be influenced by the presence of residual gradients and patient-prosthesis mismatch. The aim of this study was to compare hemodynamic performance and clinical outcomes at 5 years after prospectively randomized porcine versus bovine aortic valve replacement. We also aimed to determine the effects of valve hemodynamics on left ventricular (LV) mass regression. METHODS: A total of 108 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement were randomized to receive either the Medtronic Mosaic (MM) porcine (n=54) or the Edwards Perimount Magna (EPM) bovine pericardial prosthesis (n=54). Clinical outcomes, mean gradients, effective orifice area and LV mass regression were evaluated at 1 and 5 years after surgery. Follow-up echocardiograms were performed on 106 (98%) and 87 (92%) patients, respectively. RESULTS: Preoperative characteristics were similar between groups. Mean aortic annulus diameter and mean implant size were comparable in both groups. At 1 and 5 years, mean transprosthetic gradients were lower in the EPM group: EPM 10.3±3.4mmHg versus MM 16.3 ± 7.6 mmHg (p<0.0001) and EPM 9.6 ± 3.5 mmHg versus MM 16.8 ± 8.7 mmHg (p<0.0001), respectively. Similarly, indexed effective orifice areas (IEOA) at 1 and 5 years were significantly greater in the EPM group: EPM 1.10 ± 0.22 cm(2)m(-2) versus MM 0.96 ± 0.22 cm(2)m(-2) (p<0.004) and EPM 1.02 ± 0.25 cm(2)m(-2) versus MM 0.76 ± 0.19 cm(2)m(-2) (p<0.0001), respectively. At 5 years, the incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch (IEOA ≤0.85 cm(2)m(-2)) was significantly lower in the EPM group: EPM 22.9% vs MM 73.9% (p<0.0001). Such differences were similar when analysis was stratified by surgically measured annular size and implant valve size. During the first year after surgery, both groups demonstrated similar regression of LV mass index (MM -26.3 ± 43 gm(2) vs EPM -30.1 ± 36 gm(-2); p=0.8); however, at 5 years, regression of LV mass index was significantly greater in the EPM group: (EPM -47.4 ± 35 gm(-2) vs -4.4 ± 36 gm(-2); p<0.0001). Five-year survival was 79.6 ± 4.1% in the MM group and 94.4 ± 2.2% in the EPM group (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: At 5 years, the EPM valve was significantly superior to the MM prosthesis with regard to hemodynamic performance, incidence of patient-prosthesis mismatch and regression of LV mass index. The hemodynamic superiority of the EPM prostheses in comparison to MM-prostheses demonstrated at 1 year, increased significantly over time.