Neuroanesthesia practice during COVID-19: A single-center experience

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a challenge for all health care providers (HCPs). Anesthesiologists are vulnerable to acquiring the disease during aerosol-generating procedures in operating theater and intensive care units. High index of suspicion, detailed history including travel history, strict hand hygiene, use of face masks, and appropriate personal protective equipment are some ways to minimize the risk of exposure to disease. Neurologic manifestations of COVID-19, modification of anesthesia regimen based on the procedure performed, and HCP safety are some implications relevant to a neuroanesthesiologist. National and international guidelines, recommendations, and position statements help in risk stratification, prioritization, and scheduling of neurosurgery and neurointervention procedures. Institutional protocols can be formulated based on the guidelines wherein each HCP has a definite role in this ever-changing scenario. Mental and physical well-being of HCPs is an integral part of successful management of patients. We present our experience in managing 143 patients during the lockdown period in India.Copyright © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications. All rights reserved.

A novel negative pressure isolation device reduces aerosol exposure: A randomized controlled trial

Background and aim: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a proliferation of intubation barriers designed to protect healthcare workers from infection. We developed the Suction-Assisted Local Aerosol Containment Chamber (SLACC) and tested it in the operating room. The primary objectives were to determine the ease and safety of airway management with SLACC, and to measure its efficacy of aerosol containment to determine if it significantly reduces exposure to health care workers. Method(s): In this randomized clinical trial, adult patients scheduled to undergo elective surgery with general endotracheal anesthesia were screened and informed consent obtained from those willing to participate. Patients were randomized to airway management either with or without the SLACC device. Patients inhaled nebulized saline before and during anesthesia induction to simulate the size and concentration of particles seen with severe symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection. Result(s): 79 patients were enrolled and randomized. Particle number concentration (PNC) at the patients' and healthcare workers' locations were measured and compared between the SLACC vs. control groups during airway management. Ease and success of tracheal intubation were recorded for each patient. All intubations were successful and time to intubation was similar between the two groups. Healthcare workers were exposed to significantly lower particle number concentrations (#/cm3) during airway management when SLACC was utilized vs. control. The particle count outside SLACC was reduced by 97% compared to that inside the device. Conclusion(s): The SLACC device does not interfere with airway management and significantly reduces healthcare worker exposure to aerosolized particles during airway management.Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd

The dental office: A safe place against COVID19 and other future pandemics

Background: The pandemic caused by the spread of COVID19 generated throughout the world great changes in all areas of life. Social distancing was carried out very drastically in some countries, and even in the field of dental care, some countries prohibited the practice of dentistry. Objective(s): To demonstrate that the dental office is safe regarding the possibility of contagion of Sars-Cov-2 as long as good biosecurity protocols are used. Method(s): A structured survey of 19 questions was applied to 103 patients who subsequently attended a periodontics and oral and maxillofacial surgery office in Mexico, to receive care from these specialties between April 2020 and July 2021. The questions posed in this survey were aimed at knowing the opinion of the patients regarding the measures that this establishment has for the prevention of the transmission of COVID19, as well as questions regarding the possible effects of attending this office in contagion of the disease from patients and their families. Result(s): A total of 18 (17.5%) patients reported having suffered COVID19, and none reported that they fell ill after the consultation. None of the clinic's specialists and assistants have fallen ill with COVID-19 during the pandemic. Conclusion(s): It is not necessary to suspend or condition dental care during times of pandemics such as what happened with COVID19, as long as strict safety protocols are observed within clinical facilities.Copyright © 2022 The Authors

Performance of Aerosol Boxes for Endotracheal Intubation during the COVID-19 Pandemic with Systematic Review.

Introduction: In the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, endotracheal intubation using an aerosol box (AB) became the norm in the emergency department (ED) and the intensive care unit. We compared two models of AB with different dimensions to compare and identify a device that helps in reducing viral exposure without compromising successful airway management. Methods: We conducted this prospective observational study for 7 months (October 20-April 21) on 143 patients presenting with an acute airway compromise to the ED. All intubations were performed using one of the two models available. The primary outcome was time taken for intubation (TTI). Results: The overall median time taken to intubate using any AB was 63 (interquartile range [IQR]: 46.2-87.7) s with an 81.9% first-pass success (FPS) rate. TTI for AB I was 67 (IQR: 53-106) s with a 76.3% FPS rate, while TTI for AB II was 57 (IQR: 44-75) s with an 85.9% FPS rate. TTI was much shorter without the use of an AB (34: IQR: 24-53 s) with a 92% FPS rate. Intubations done by emergency physicians with more than 2 years of experience were faster in both with or without AB when compared to intubations done by physicians with <2 years of experience. Conclusion: The use of an AB is associated with a longer TTI when compared to intubations done without an AB. TTI was relatively shorter when more experienced emergency physicians performed intubation. FPS rates were low with intubations done using AB.

Aerosol containment device design considerations and performance evaluation metrics.

BACKGROUND: Spurred by the Coronavirus infectious disease 2019 pandemic, aerosol containment devices (ACDs) were developed to capture infectious respiratory aerosols generated by patients at their source. Prior reviews indicated that such devices had low evidence of effectiveness, but did not address how ACDs should be evaluated, how well they should perform, nor have clearly defined performance standards. Towards developing design criteria for ACDs, two questions were posed: 1) What characteristics have guided the design of ACDs? 2) How have these characteristics been evaluated? METHODS: A scoping review was performed consistent with PRISMA guidelines. Data were extracted with respect to general study information, intended use of the device, device design characteristics and evaluation. RESULTS: Fifty-four articles were included. Evaluation was most commonly performed with respect to device aerosol containment (n = 31, 61%), with only 5 (9%), 3 (6%) and 8 (15%) formally assessing providing experience, patient experience and procedure impact, respectively. Nearly all of the studies that explored provider experience and procedure impact studied intubation. Few studies provided a priori performance criteria for any evaluation metric, or referenced any external guidelines by which to bench mark performance. CONCLUSION: With respect to aerosol containment, ACDs should reduce exposure among HCP with the device compared with the absence of the device, and provide ≥90% reduction in respirable aerosols, equivalent in performance to N95 filtering facepiece respirators, if the goal is to reduce reliance on personal protective equipment. The ACD should not increase awkward or uncomfortable postures, or adversely impact biomechanics of the procedure itself as this could have implications for procedure outcomes. A variety of standardized instruments exist to assess the experience of patients and healthcare personnel. Integration of ACDs into routine clinical practice requires rigorous studies of aerosol containment and the user experience.

Medical training in orotracheal intubation with acrylic box in pediatric SARS-CoV-2 patients decreases exposure time

Introduction: in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the modification of the intubation technique using the aerosol box, in order to reduce exposure to aerosols generates anxiety in Health Workers (HCWs), by increasing the degree of difficulty and time of endotracheal intubation (IT). Simulated intubation environments allow to measured IT and also increase intubation ability and decrease IT. Objective(s): to measure IT pre (without box without training-SS-, with box without training-CS-, with box with training-CC-) and post educational maneuver. Material(s) and Method(s): retrospective, comparative, before and after;with physicians trained in a simulated environment. Result(s): n = 82, age 29 years (27 to 31 years), clinicians 69.5%, residents 82.9%. IT: SS 35 s (27-47.25 s), CS 39.5 s (28-56.5 s) and CC 22 seconds (17.5-30 s), p = 0.0001. Higher IT of clinical vs surgical physicians SS 39 s (30-52 s) versus 32 s (24-34 s), p = 0.004;CS 42 s (33-59 s) versus 28 s (21-43 s), p = 0.016;CC 25 s (20-35 s) versus 19 s (16-21 s) p = 0.018. Higher TI novice vs experienced SS 68 s (39-135 s) versus 34 s (27-46 s), p = 0.058;CS 144 s (84-210 s) versus 38 (28-54 s), p = 0.001, CC 46 s (30-55 s) versus 22 s (17-30 s), p = 0.030. Using the device without training increased IT, but post-training IT decreased in all groups-16 s (-26 to-7 s), which was more noticeable among novices-98 s (-163 to-45.5 s) and the clinical group-18.5 s (-32 to-7 s). Conclusion(s): the use of devices with training can be efficient in terms of IT, regardless the degree of experience and type of medical specialty. Copyright © 2022, Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Respiratorias. All rights reserved.

The impact of aerosol box on tracheal intubation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to summarize the effect of the aerosol box on tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19. AREAS COVERED: According to the PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was performed to identify relevant literature on the 'impact of the aerosol box on tracheal intubation during the COVID-19 pandemic' in different electronic databases up to March 2021. Based on a set of predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, 447 articles were screened. Finally, 20 articles were included in the current systematic review. The findings showed that the use of aerosol box during intubation could reduce droplet contamination on the healthcare workers but not necessarily aerosols. An increase in the time of intubation with the aerosol box was also observed in 9 out of 12 studies (75%); however, three studies reported no significant difference in the time of intubation with and without the aerosol box. Most studies (8 out of 9, 89%) were also shown that intubation with the aerosol box may lead to more difficulty. EXPERT OPINION: The proceduralist and other healthcare workers involved in airway management of COVID-19 infected patients should decide whether to apply the aerosol box with caution, balancing between benefits and risks, especially in difficult airway circumstances.

Prevention of submicron aerosolized particle dispersion: evaluation of an aerosol box using a pediatric simulation model.

Background and Aim: The SplashGuard CG (SG) is a barrier enclosure developed to protect healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 transmission during aerosol-generating procedures. Our objective was to evaluate the protection provided by the SG against aerosolized particles (AP), using a pediatric simulation model of spontaneous ventilation (SV) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Methods: An aerosol generator was connected to the airways of a pediatric high-fidelity manikin with a breathing simulator. AP concentrations were measured both in SV and NIV in the following conditions: with and without SG, inside and outside the SG, with and without suction applied to the device. Results: In the SV simulated setting, AP peaks were lower with SG: 0.1 × 105 particles/L compared to without: 1.6 × 105, only when the ports were closed and suction applied. In the NIV simulated setting, AP peaks outside the SG were lower than without SG (20.5 × 105 particles/L), whatever the situation, without suction (14.4 × 105particles/L), with suction and ports open or closed: 10.3 and 0.7 × 105 particles/L. In SV and NIV simulated settings, the AP peaks measured within the SG were much higher than the AP peaks measured without SG, even when suction was applied to the device. Conclusions: The SG seems to decrease peak AP exposure in the 2 ventilation contexts, but only with closed port and suction in SV. However, high concentrations of AP remain inside even with suction and SG should be used cautiously.

Comparative Study to Evaluate the Effect of Intubation Box on Tracheal Intubation Difficulty with King Vision ® and Truview Video Laryngoscope in Manikin in a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background: The procedures related to airway can be associated with increased risk of aerosolization of SARS-CoV-2 virus posing a high risk to the personnels involved. Novel methods like the intubation box have been developed to increase the safety of healthcare workers during intubation. Methods: In this study, 33 anaesthesiologist and critical care specialists intubated the trachea of the airway manikin (US Laerdal Medical AS) 4 times using a King Vision ® videolaryngoscope and TRUVIEW PCD TM videolaryngoscope (with and without an intubation box as described by Lai). Intubation time was primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were first-pass intubation success rate, percentage of glottic opening (POGO) score and peak force to maxillary incisors measured with a pressure sensing device. Results: Intubation time and the pressure exerted on the incisors (detected by a click sound) were considerably higher in both groups when an intubation box was used. (Table 1) When comparing the two laryngoscopes, intubation time with the King Vision ® video laryngoscope was lower than that of TRUVIEW laryngoscope, both with and without the intubation box. (P<0.001) In both groups, rate of first pass successful intubation was higher without the intubation box, although the difference was statistically insignificant. POGO Score was not affected by intubation box but higher score was observed with King Vision ® laryngoscope. (Table 1,2). Conclusion: This study indicates that use of an intubation box makes intubation difficult and increases the time. King Vision ® videolaryngoscope results in lesser intubation time and better glottic view as compared to TRUVIEW laryngoscope.

Aerosol boxes for airway management in coronavirus disease patients: a clinical retrospective study in Mexico.

INTRODUCTION: Significant concerns raise for the healthcare workers involved in airway management of patients diagnosed with coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19). Due to shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE), barrier enclosure systems such as aerosol box (AB) have been proposed worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate our experience using AB as protective equipment in patients with COVID-19 in a third-level center in Mexico. METHODS: A retrospective study of COVID-19 patients requiring airway management using an AB in the Hospital Central Sur de Alta Especialidad de Pemex in Mexico City from March 1 to June 1, 2020. Antropometric data, pre-intubation vital signs, and laboratory tests were recorded; the primary endpoints were intubation success rate and complications associated with AB and patients' mortality. As a secondary endpoint, AB subjective evaluation was explored by administering a survey after airway management procedures. RESULTS: Thirty-nine patients for a total of 40 intubations were documented. Thirty-one (77.5%) were men, with a mean age of 61.65 years; successful intubation occurred in 39 (97.55%) of the procedures, and AB was used in 36 (90%) of intubations, with success in 28 (70.0%); A Cormack-Lehane grade 3 view was recorded in 18 patients (46.2%), and during the procedure, the AB had to be removed in 8 (22.2%) cases, with migration documented in 91.6% of cases. The 30-day mortality was 48.71%, with 23.0% of patients discharged. 83.3% of surveyed anesthesiologists reported significant limitations in manipulating airway devices with AB used. CONCLUSION: Our data indicate that in clinical practice, the use of AB may hinder airway management and decrease the intubation success rate and may also result in patients' injury. Further studies are necessary to validate the use of AB in clinical practice, and they should not replace certified PPE.

Comparison between Direct Laryngoscopy with and without Aerosol Box for Intubation in Patients Undergoing General Anaesthesia during COVID-19 Pandemic- A Randomised Controlled Study

Introduction: The airway management of patients with COVID-19 is a high risk task for anaesthesiologists. Several innovations have been born as a result of this problem, including aerosol boxes and clear plastic sheets. Aim: To compare the timing and attempt of direct laryngoscopy with and without aerosol box for intubation in patients undergoing general anaesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: This was a randomised controlled study was conducted in Parul Sevashram Hospital, Parul University, Vadodara, Gujrat, India from April 2021 to September 2021. A total of 50 patients were randomly divided into two equal groups as group A was intubated with an aerosol box and a macintosh laryngoscope, while group B was intubated with a clear plastic sheet and macintosh laryngoscope. With proper airway precautions and Personal Protective Equipments (PPE) comparative assessment of patients undergoing surgery in general anaesthesia was done. Time to intubate, number of attempts, ease of Endotracheal Tube (ETT) tube insertion, quality of Laryngoscopy view and Cormack Lehane scores were assessed in both the groups. Results: The mean time for intubation was high at 29.72 seconds in group A, while it was 23.16 seconds in group B;the difference was significant. Overall, 20 out of 25 (80%) patients could be intubated in 1st attempt in group B as compared to 15 out of 25 (60%) in group A. Airway visualisation using Percentage of Glottic Opening (POGO) scoring and Cormack Lehane staging were suggestive of better visualisation in group B than group A. Difficulties encountered during intubation like laryngoscopy, glottic visualisation, arm movement restriction, ETT negotiation, and stylet removal were lesser in group A as compared to group B. The incidence of complications like sore throat and airway bleeding were lower in group B as compared to group A. Conclusion: In the COVID-19 era, aerosol box and clear plastic sheets are effective barrier measures for airway management to prevent the anaesthesiologists from the aerosol transmission. But airway management with clear plastic sheet is technically easier than aerosol box.

NOVEL, SAFE, INDIGENOUS COST-EFFECTIVE INFECTION CONTAINMENT CHAMBER FOR HIGH-RISK AUTOPSIES: THE NEED OF THE HOUR

In view of the ongoing pandemic, healthcare workers are rightfully concerned about performing autopsies, due to the risk of infection. An autopsy surgeon and his/her team can inadvertently be exposed to infectious diseases. Use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) and mortuaries equipped with negative pressure are essential to protect the autopsy team from exposure to potentially infected bodies, bodily fluids, tissues, and aerosolized particles. Unfortunately, in a developing country like India, due to a lack of funding most mortuaries have only the bare minimum facilities. Taking these issues into consideration, the authors have developed a prototype of a Low-Cost Infection Containment Chamber (LCICC) within which autopsies or sample collection from suspected or confirmed highly infectious cadaver can be performed. This innovation could provide infectious disease experts and pathologists a safer alternative to collect specimens to aid in the management outbreaks of highly infectious diseases.

Effectiveness of "Resuscitation Cover All" in Minimizing COVID-19 Transmission to Health-Care Workers during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation.

Introduction: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a highly contagious disease transmitted by contact, droplets, and aerosols. Front line health-care workers (HCWs), particularly emergency physicians and acute care providers, are vulnerable to being exposed while treating their sick patients. Despite appropriate personal protective equipment use, HCW gets infected, suggesting the need for multiple layers of protection such as barrier devices. Methods: We aimed to determine the effectiveness of our novel "Resuscitation Cover All"(RCA) in reducing the exposure of HCW to simulated respiratory particles and its feasibility during cardio pulmonary resuscitation (CPR). This was a pilot simulation-based study. Five CPR simulation sessions were performed in Standard and RCA protocols, individually. Exposures through contact, droplets, and aerosols were simulated using a standardized volume of liquid detergent. Under Wood's lamp illumination, exposures of participants were compared between the protocols. Rate and depth of chest compressions, time taken to intubate, interruptions in CPR, and first-pass success were analyzed. Results: Overall mean exposure in standard protocol was 4950.4 ± 1461.6 (95%confidence interval [CI]:3135.7-6765.2) sq.pixels and RCA protocol was 2203.6 ± 1499.0 (95%CI: 342.4-4064.9) sq.pixels (P = 0.019). In standard, chest compressor had the highest exposure of 3066.6 ± 1419.2 (95%CI: 2051.3-4081.9) sq.pixels followed by defibrillator assistant 1166.4 ± 767.4 (95%CI: 617.4-1715.4) sq.pixels. Chest compressor of RCA had reduced exposure compared to that of standard (P < 0.001). Hands were the most frequently exposed body part. Airway manager of RCA had no exposure over head and neck in any session. No significant difference in CPR performance metrics was observed. Conclusion: This pilot simulation-based study shows that the novel RCA device could minimize the exposure of HCW to simulated respiratory particles during CPR. Also, it might not alter the high-quality CPR performance metrics. We need more real-life evidence.

An overview of COVID-19 aerosol box for preventing droplet and aerosol contaminations in healthcare providers performing airway intubation.

The COVID-19 is caused by the SARS-CoV-2, which is extremely infectious. Numerous virologist suggestions and guidelines advised using P2/N95 masks, gloves, goggles, face-shields, and frocks or gowns as routine specific protective tools during airway management to protect healthcare personnel from infection (PPE). However, numerous imitation research has indicated that conventional PPE cannot adequately protect healthcare personnel. Since then, numerous firms and healthcare professionals have created their personal reformed devices 'aerosol containment devices' (ACD). Their usage has expanded throughout the world without being properly evaluated for usefulness, efficacy, or safety. The practice of 'ACD' has been shown to make tracheal intubation (TI) more problematic in several simulated tests. Furthermore, the device should limit the transmission of droplets from a patient; however, it might put healthcare personnel at danger of being exposed to greater levels of viral aerosols. Consequently, the existing state of information suggests that 'ACD' deprived of a vacuum mechanism can simply protect healthcare personnel against viral transmission to a limited extent. We search various databases for the literature with keywords 'COVID-19,' 'aerosol box,' 'aerosol contaminations,' and 'droplet contaminations.' The current review focused on the aerosol box from various perspectives, including their mechanism, optimum time of use, the spread of aerosol control, current gaps, and future perspective for bridging those gaps.

Evaluation of the conventional and modified aerosol boxes during tracheal intubation in normal and difficult airways: a randomized, crossover, manikin simulation study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate conventional and modified aerosol boxes in terms of intubation time, first-pass intubation success, and mouth-to-mouth distance between the laryngoscopist and patient during tracheal intubation in simulated patients with normal and difficult airways. Sixteen anesthesiologists performed tracheal intubations with direct laryngoscope or three different videolaryngoscopes (McGRATH MAC videolaryngoscope, C-MAC videolaryngoscope, and Pentax-AWS) without an aerosol box or with a conventional or a modified aerosol boxes in simulated manikins with normal and difficult airways. Intubation time, first-pass intubation success, and mouth-to-mouth distance during tracheal intubation were recorded. Compared to no aerosol box, the use of a conventional aerosol box significantly increased intubation time in both normal and difficult airways (Bonferroni-corrected P-value (Pcorrected) = 0.005 and Pcorrected = 0.003, respectively). Intubation time was significantly shorter with the modified aerosol box than with the conventional one for both normal and difficult airways (Pcorrected = 0.003 and Pcorrected = 0.011, respectively). However, no significant differences were found in intubation time between no aerosol box and the modified aerosol box for normal and difficult airways (Pcorrected = 0.336 and Pcorrected = 0.112, respectively). The use of conventional or modified aerosol boxes significantly extended the mouth-to-mouth distances compared to not using an aerosol box during tracheal intubation with each laryngoscope (all Pcorrected < 0.05), and the distances were not different between the conventional and modified boxes in normal and difficult airways. The use of modified aerosol box did not increase intubation time and could help maintain a distance from the simulated patients with normal and difficult airways.

Aero-Sim: A User-Centred Testbed for the Evaluation of Devices as Protection from Droplets and/or Aerosol Contaminations.

Concerns over high transmission risk of SARS-CoV-2 have led to innovation and usage of an aerosol box to protect healthcare workers during airway intubation in patients with COVID-19. However, only a few studies have examined the impact of these aerosol boxes on the dispersion of droplets and aerosols, which are both thought to be significant contributors to the spread of COVID-19. In addition, to our knowledge, only a few studies have included in the concerned testbeds elements of the work context, which nevertheless have an impact on the use of the device.

Comparison of the Efficiency and Usability of Aerosol Box and Intubation Tent on Intubation of a Manikin Using Personal Protective Equipment: A Randomized Crossover Study.

BACKGROUND: The aerosol box and intubation tent are improvised barrier-enclosure devices developed during the novel coronavirus pandemic to protect health care workers from aerosol transmission. OBJECTIVE: Using time to intubation as a crude proxy, we aimed to compare the efficiency and usability of the aerosol box and intubation tent in a simulated manikin. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, crossover manikin study involving 28 participants (9 anesthetists, 16 emergency physicians, and 3 intensivists). Each participant performed rapid sequence intubations in a random sequence of three different scenarios: 1) no device use; 2) aerosol box; 3) intubation tent. We compared the time to intubation between different scenarios. RESULTS: The median total intubation time with no device use, aerosol box, and intubation tent were 23.7 s (interquartile range [IQR] 19.4-28.4 s), 30.9 s (IQR 24.1-52.5 s), and 26.0 s (IQR 22.1-30.8 s), respectively. Post hoc analysis showed a significantly longer intubation time using the aerosol box compared with no device use (p < 0.001) and compared with the intubation tent (p < 0.001). The difference between the intubation tent and no device use was not significant. The first-pass intubation success rate did not differ between the groups. Only aerosol box use had resulted in breaches of personal protective equipment. Participants considered intubation with the intubation tent more favorable than the aerosol box. CONCLUSIONS: The intubation tent seems to have a better barrier-enclosure design than the aerosol box, with a reasonable balance between efficiency and usability. Further evaluation of its efficacy in preventing aerosol dispersal and in human studies are warranted prior to recommendation of widespread adoption.

Comparative performance of two protective barriers during tracheal intubation of COVID-19 patients: A simulation cross-over study.

COVID-19 was declared a pandemic by the WHO in 2020. In light of the global shortage of PPE and concerns regarding the safety of healthcare providers, clinicians have resorted to the use of novel protective barriers, such as aerosol boxes and plastic sheets, during aerosol generating procedures, especially tracheal intubation. We compared the effect of these barriers on the tracheal intubation of simulated patients with severe COVID-19 in a crossover study. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of King Faisal Specialist Hospital, and the procedures were compliant with the COVID-19 airway management guidelines of the Saudi Anesthesia Society. The time to intubation was our primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included number of optimization maneuvers, number of intubation attempts, time to glottic view and ventilation of the lungs, and damage to PPE. Thirteen consultant anesthetists performed 39 tracheal intubations on a manikin using each of three approaches (aerosol box, plastic sheet, and no-barrier). Data were collected via direct and video observation. The plastic sheet approach demonstrated the highest time to intubation (mean ± StE [95% CI]: 33.3s ± 3.5 [25.8- 40.9]) compared to the aerosol box (22.0s ± 2.5 [16.5 - 27.5], P < 0.01) and no-barrier approaches (16.1s ± 1.1 [13.7 - 18.4], P < 0.0001). Similarly, the plastic sheet approach had the highest time to glottic view, and ventilation intervals compared to the other two approaches, while the no-barrier approach had the shortest time intervals. There were no failed intubations or damage to the PPE sustained during the use of any of the three approaches. The aerosol box does not impose a significant delay in tracheal intubation using video laryngoscopy, unlike the plastic sheet barrier. Further research on the aerosolization risk is warranted before these protective barriers can be considered as mainstay approaches during aerosol generating procedures.

Aerosol boxes decrease aerosol exposure only in depressurized rooms during aerosol-generating procedures in a simulation study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare aerosol exposure with or without an aerosol box in a pressurized/depressurized room during aerosol-generating procedures using an experimental model. METHODS: Cake flour (aerosol model) was expelled from an advanced life support training mannequin. The primary outcome measure was the number of 0.3-10 µm-sized particles at three locations corresponding to the physician, medical staff, and environmental aerosol exposure levels. The aerosol dispersion was visualized using a high-resolution video. The number of expelled particles was measured after artificial coughing during simulated tracheal intubation and extubation in four situations, with or without an aerosol box in a pressurized or depressurized room (≤ 2.5 Pa). RESULTS: The particles arising from tracheal intubation at the three positions in the four groups differed significantly in size (p < 0.05). The sizes of particles arising from extubation at the physicians' and medical staff's faces in the four groups differed significantly in size (p < 0.05). Post hoc analysis showed that the counts of all particles at the three positions were significantly lower in the depressurized room with an aerosol box than in the pressurized room without an aerosol box during tracheal intubation (p < 0.05 at three positions) and extubation (p < 0.05) at the physician's and medical staff's positions). Visual assessments supported these results. CONCLUSION: The aerosol box decreased the exposure of the aerosol to the physician, medical staff, and environment during aerosol-generating procedures in the depressurized room only.

Macintosh laryngoscope and i-view™ and C-MAC® video laryngoscopes for tracheal intubation with an aerosol box: a randomized crossover manikin study.

BACKGROUND: We tested the hypothesis that the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (C-MAC) with an external display is more useful than the disposable i-view™ video laryngoscope (i-view) with an integrated display or a Macintosh direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) for tracheal intubation with an aerosol box. METHODS: In this randomized, crossover manikin study, we recruited 37 medical personnel with > 2 years of dedicated anesthesia experience from five hospitals. After the three successful intubations within 60 s using each laryngoscope without a box, the participants performed tracheal intubation thrice with each laryngoscope with at least 2-h intervals in a determined order. The primary outcome was the intubation time. The secondary outcomes were success rate, Cormack-Lehane grade, and subjective difficulty scale score. RESULTS: Thirty-seven personnel (11 women and 26 men) with 12 [5-19] (median [interquartile range]) years of anesthesia and intensive care experience were enrolled. There was no significant difference in the intubation time: 30 [26-32] s for Macintosh, 29 [26-32] s for i-view, and 29 [25-31] s for C-MAC (P = 0.247). The success rate was 95-100%, without a significant difference (P = 0.135). The i-view and C-MAC exhibited superior Cormack-Lehane grades and lower subjective difficulty scale scores than the Macintosh; however, there were no differences between the i-view and C-MAC. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and highly successful tracheal intubation was possible with both Macintosh, i-view, and C-MAC on a normal airway manikin in an aerosol box. Improved Cormack-Lehane grade and the ease of performing the procedure may support the use of video laryngoscopes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000040269 . Registered 30 April 2020.