[Airway management in neonates and infants : Recommendations according to the ESAIC/BJA guidelines]. / Atemwegssicherung bei Neugeborenen und Säuglingen : Handlungsempfehlung gemäß der BJA/ESAIC-Leitlinie.

Securing an airway enables the oxygenation and ventilation of the lungs and is a potentially life-saving medical procedure. Adverse and critical events are common during airway management, particularly in neonates and infants. The multifactorial reasons for this include patient-dependent, user-dependent and also external factors. The recently published joint ESAIC/BJA international guidelines on airway management in neonates and infants are summarized with a focus on the clinical application. The original publication of the guidelines focussed on naming formal recommendations based on systematically documented evidence, whereas this summary focusses particularly on the practicability of their implementation.

Critical airway-related incidents and near misses in anaesthesia: a qualitative study of a critical incident reporting system.

BACKGROUND: Many serious adverse events in anaesthesia are retrospectively rated as preventable. Anonymous reporting of near misses to a critical incident reporting system (CIRS) can identify structural weaknesses and improve quality, but incidents are often underreported. METHODS: This prospective qualitative study aimed to identify conceptions of a CIRS and reasons for underreporting at a single Swiss centre. Anaesthesia cases were screened to identify critical airway-related incidents that qualified to be reported to the CIRS. Anaesthesia providers involved in these incidents were individually interviewed. Factors that prevented or encouraged reporting of critical incidents to the CIRS were evaluated. Interview data were analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Of 3668 screened airway management procedures, 101 cases (2.8%) involved a critical incident. Saturation was reached after interviewing 21 anaesthesia providers, who had been involved in 42/101 critical incidents (41.6%). Only one incident (1.0%) had been reported to the CIRS, demonstrating significant underreporting. Interviews revealed highly variable views on the aims of the CIRS with an overall high threshold for reporting a critical incident. Factors hindering reporting of cases included concerns regarding identifiability of the reported incident and involved healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to foster anonymity of reporting, such as by national rather than departmental critical incident reporting system databases, and a change in culture is required to enhance reporting of critical incidents. Institutions managing a critical incident reporting system need to ensure timely feedback to the team regarding lessons learned, consequences, and changes to standards of care owing to reported critical incidents. Consistent reporting and assessment of critical incidents is required to allow the full potential of a critical incident reporting system.

[Recommendations of the new S1 guidelines on airway management]. / Empfehlungen zur neuen S1-Leitlinie Atemwegsmanagement.

The German guidelines for airway management aim to optimize the care of patients undergoing anesthesia or intensive care. The preanesthesia evaluation is an important component for detection of anatomical and physiological indications for difficult mask ventilation and intubation. If predictors for a difficult or impossible mask ventilation and/or endotracheal intubation are present the airway should be secured while maintaining spontaneous breathing. In an unexpectedly difficult intubation, attempts to secure the airway should be limited to two with each method used. A video laryngoscope is recommended after an unsuccessful direct laryngoscopy. Therefore, a video laryngoscope should be available at every anesthesiology workspace throughout the hospital. Securing the airway should primarily be performed with a video laryngoscope in critically ill patients and patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration. Experienced personnel should perform or supervise airway management in the intensive care unit.

Tracheostomy care of non-ventilated patients and COVID considerations: A scoping review of clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to examine and evaluate the existing clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements regarding tracheostomy care for non-mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: A systematic search of databases, and professional organisations was conducted from inception to 19 March 2023. Two appraisers evaluated each guideline using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion Papers. RESULTS: No specific clinical guidelines exist on airway management in non-mechanically ventilated patients. Of 6318 articles identified, we included 12 clinical practice guidelines, and 9 consensus statements, which were from China, the US, the UK, South Korea, Australia, France and Belgium. The AGREE II scores in six domains are (1) the scope and purpose, 70.30%; (2) stakeholder involvement, 37.61%; (3) rigor of development, 33.97%; (4) clarity of presentation, 68.16%; (5) applicability, 44.23% and (6) editorial independence, 40.06%. The overall quality of evidence was level B. The summarised recommendations for clinical practice encompass the following six areas: airway humidification, management of the trach cuff, management of inner cannula, tracheostoma care, tracheostomy suctioning and management and prevention of common post-operative complications. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of the clinical guidelines on non-ventilated tracheostomy care was moderate, and further improvements are needed in domains of stakeholder involvement, applicability, clarity of presentation and editorial independence. Recommendations on non-ventilated tracheostomy care are often embedded in the guidelines on ventilated tracheostomy. Specific clinical guidelines are needed to provide a standardised approach to tracheostomy care for non-ventilated patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Patients with non-ventilated tracheostomy need specialised airway management. Improving patient outcomes requires standardised protocols, patient involvement, quality evaluation, and interdisciplinary approaches. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The study reviewed clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements, therefore patient or public input was not needed.

Airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society (DAS), Association of Anaesthetists (AoA), British Society of Orthopaedic Anaesthetists (BSOA), Intensive Care Society (ICS), Neuro Anaesthesia and Critical Care Society (NACCS), Faculty of Prehospital Care and Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM).

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that airway management in patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury may exacerbate an existing neurological deficit, cause a new spinal cord injury or be hazardous due to precautions to avoid neurological injury. However, there are no evidence-based guidelines for practicing clinicians to support safe and effective airway management in this setting. METHODS: An expert multidisciplinary, multi-society working party conducted a systematic review of contemporary literature (January 2012-June 2022), followed by a three-round Delphi process to produce guidelines to improve airway management for patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury. RESULTS: We included 67 articles in the systematic review, and successfully agreed 23 recommendations. Evidence supporting recommendations was generally modest, and only one moderate and two strong recommendations were made. Overall, recommendations highlight key principles and techniques for pre-oxygenation and facemask ventilation; supraglottic airway device use; tracheal intubation; adjuncts during tracheal intubation; cricoid force and external laryngeal manipulation; emergency front-of-neck airway access; awake tracheal intubation; and cervical spine immobilisation. We also signpost to recommendations on pre-hospital care, military settings and principles in human factors. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that the pragmatic approach to airway management made within these guidelines will improve the safety and efficacy of airway management in adult patients with suspected or confirmed cervical spine injury.

Swedish consensus regarding difficult pre-hospital airway management: a Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to establish a consensus among experts in prehospital work regarding the management of difficult airways in prehospital care in Sweden. The results were subsequently used to develop an algorithm for handling difficult airway in prehospital care, as there was none available in Sweden prior to this study. METHODS: This two-round Delphi study was conducted by forming an expert panel comprising anesthesiologists and anesthesia nurses working in prehospital setting in Sweden. The expert panel responded digital forms with questions and statements related to airway management. The study continued until consensus was reached, defined as more than 70% agreement. The study took place from December 4, 2021, to May 15, 2022. RESULTS: In the first round, 74 participants took part, while the second round involved 37 participants. Consensus was reached in 16 out of 17 statements. 92% of the participants agreed that an airway algorithm adapted for prehospital use is necessary. CONCLUSIONS: The capacity to adapt the approach to airway management based on specific pre-hospital circumstances is crucial. It holds significance to establish a uniform framework that is applicable across various airway management scenarios. Consequently, the airway management algorithm that has been devised should be regarded as a recommendation, allowing for flexibility rather than being interpreted as a rigid course of action. This represents the inaugural nationwide algorithm for airway management designed exclusively for pre-hospital operations in Sweden. The algorithm is the result of a consensus reached by experts in pre-hospital care.

Prediction of a Difficult Airway Using the ARNE Score and Flexible Laryngoscopy in Patients with Laryngeal Pathology.

Background and Objectives: The ARNE score was developed for the prediction of a difficult airway for both general and ear, nose and throat (ENT) surgery with a universal cut-off value. We tested the accuracy of this score in the case of laryngeal surgery and provided an insight into its effects in combination with flexible laryngoscopy. Materials and Methods: This prospective pilot clinical study included 100 patients who were being scheduled for microscopic laryngeal surgery. We calculated the ARNE score for every patient, and flexible laryngoscopy was provided preoperative. Difficult intubation was assessed according to the intubation difficulty score (IDS). Results: A total of 33% patients had difficult intubation according to the IDS. The ARNE score showed limited accuracy for the prediction of difficult intubation in laryngology with p < 0.0001 and an AUC of 0.784. Flexible laryngoscopy also showed limitations when used as an independent parameter with p < 0.0001 and an AUC of 0.766. We defined a new cut-off value of 15.50 for laryngology, according to the AUC. After the patients were divided into two groups, according to the new cut-off value and provided cut-off value, the AUC improved to 0.707 from 0.619, respectively. Flexible laryngoscopy improved the prediction model of the ARNE score to an AUC of 0.882 and of the new cut-off value to an AUC of 0.833. Conclusions: It is recommended to use flexible laryngoscopy together with the ARNE score in difficult airway prediction in patients with laryngeal pathology. Also, the universally recommended cut-off value of 11 cannot be effectively used in laryngology, and a new cut-off value of 15.50 is recommended.

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. Part I.

The Airway Management section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), and the Spanish Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guide for the comprehensive management of difficult airway in adult patients. Its principles are focused on the human factors, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations, and optimization in the progression of strategies application to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to enhance safety and the quality of care. The document provides evidence-based recommendations, theoretical-educational tools, and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to airway management in the fields of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies, and prehospital medicine. For this purpose, an extensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA-R guidelines and was analyzed using the GRADE methodology. Recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology. Recommendations for sections with low-quality evidence were based on expert opinion through consensus reached via a Delphi questionnaire.

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. Part II.

The Airway Management section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation, and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Emergency Medicine (SEMES), and the Spanish Society of Otorhinolaryngology and Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guide for the comprehensive management of difficult airway in adult patients. Its principles are focused on the human factors, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations, and optimization in the progression of strategies application to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to enhance safety and the quality of care. The document provides evidence-based recommendations, theoretical-educational tools, and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to airway management in the fields of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies, and prehospital medicine. For this purpose, an extensive literature search was conducted following PRISMA-R guidelines and was analyzed using the GRADE methodology. Recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE methodology. Recommendations for sections with low-quality evidence were based on expert opinion through consensus reached via a Delphi questionnaire.

Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Airway Management: Methods and Resources Document.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency airway management is a common and critical task EMS clinicians perform in the prehospital setting. A new set of evidence-based guidelines (EBG) was developed to assist in prehospital airway management decision-making. We aim to describe the methods used to develop these EBGs. METHODS: The EBG development process leveraged the four key questions from a prior systematic review conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to develop 22 different population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) questions. Evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework and tabulated into the summary of findings tables. The technical expert panel then used a rigorous systematic method to generate evidence to decision tables, including leveraging the PanelVoice function of GRADEpro. This process involved a review of the summary of findings tables, asynchronous member judging, and online facilitated panel discussions to generate final consensus-based recommendations. RESULTS: The panel completed the described work product from September 2022 to April 2023. A total of 17 summary of findings tables and 16 evidence to decision tables were generated through this process. For these recommendations, the overall certainty in evidence was "very low" or "low," data for decisions on cost-effectiveness and equity were lacking, and feasibility was rated well across all categories. Based on the evidence, 16 "conditional recommendations" were made, with six PICO questions lacking sufficient evidence to generate recommendations. CONCLUSION: The EBGs for prehospital airway management were developed by leveraging validated techniques, including the GRADE methodology and a rigorous systematic approach to consensus building to identify treatment recommendations. This process allowed the mitigation of many virtual and electronic communication confounders while managing several PICO questions to be evaluated consistently. Recognizing the increased need for rigorous evidence evaluation and recommendation development, this approach allows for transparency in the development processes and may inform future guideline development.

Evidence-Based Guideline for Prehospital Airway Management.

Airway management is a cornerstone of emergency medical care. This project aimed to create evidence-based guidelines based on the systematic review recently conducted by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). A technical expert panel was assembled to review the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The panel made specific recommendations on the different PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) questions reviewed in the AHRQ review and created good practice statements that summarize and operationalize these recommendations. The recommendations address the use of ventilation with bag-valve mask ventilation alone vs. supraglottic airways vs. endotracheal intubation for adults and children with cardiac arrest, medical emergencies, and trauma. Additional recommendations address the use of video laryngoscopy and drug-assisted airway management. These recommendations, and the associated good practice statements, offer EMS agencies and clinicians an opportunity to review the available evidence and incorporate it into their airway management strategies.

Successful Surgical Airway Performance in the Combat Prehospital Setting: A Qualitative Study of Experienced Military Prehospital Providers.

INTRODUCTION: Military first responders are in a unique category of the healthcare delivery system. They range in skill sets from combat medic and corpsman to nurses, physician assistants, and occasionally, doctors. Airway obstruction is the second leading cause of preventable battlefield death, and the decision for intervention to obtain an airway depends on the casualty's presentation, the provider's comfort level, and the available equipment, among many other variables. In the civilian prehospital setting cricothyroidotomy (cric) success rates are over 90%, but in the US military combat environment success rates range from 0-82%. This discrepancy in success rates may be due to training, environment, equipment, patient factors and/or a combination of these. Many presumed causes have been assumed to be the root of the variability, but no research has been conducted evaluating the first-person point of view. This research study is focused on interviewing military first responders with real-life combat placement of a surgical airway to identify the underlying influences which contribute to their perception of success or failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with in-depth semi-structured interviews to understand participants' real-life cric experiences. The interview questions were developed based on the Critical Incident Questionnaire. In total, there were 11 participants-4 retired military and 7 active-duty service members. RESULTS: Nine themes were generated from the 11 interviews conducted. These themes can be categorized into 2 groups: factors internal to the provider, which we have called intrinsic influences, and factors external to the provider, which we call extrinsic influences. Intrinsic influences include personal well-being, confidence, experience, and decision-making. Extrinsic influences include training, equipment, assistance, environment, and patient factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed practitioners in combat settings felt the need to train more frequently in a stepwise fashion while following a well-understood airway management algorithm. More focus must be on utilizing live tissue with biological feedback, but only after anatomy and geospatial orientation are well understood on models, mannequins, and cadavers. The equipment utilized in training must be the equipment available in the field. Lastly, the focus of the training should be on scenarios which stress the physical and mental capabilities of the providers. A true test of both self-efficacy and deliberate practice is forced through the intrinsic and extrinsic findings from the qualitative data. All of these steps must be overseen by expert practitioners. Another key is providing more time to focus on medical skills development, which is critical to overall confidence and overcoming hesitation in the decision-making process. This is even more specific to those who are least medically trained and the most likely to encounter the casualty first, EMT-Basic level providers. If possible, increasing the number of medical providers at the point of injury would achieve multiple goals under the self-efficacy learning theory. Assistance would instill confidence in the practitioner, help with the ability to prioritize patients quickly, decrease anxiety, and decrease hesitation to perform in the combat environment.

AIRWAY MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES IN OBSTETRICS.

Anatomic and physiologic changes during pregnancy make it more difficult to establish a safe airway in pregnant women in case of the need for surgery under general anesthesia than in the non-obstetric population. The inability to ventilate and oxygenate is one of the most common causes of morbidity and mortality associated with general anesthesia for cesarean section. The aim of this paper is to present and analyze modern guidelines and algorithms for the management of difficult airway in obstetrics as an important segment of anesthesiology practice. Modern difficult airway management guidelines for pregnant women describe the procedure of difficult facemask ventilation, difficult airway management by using supraglottic devices, difficult endotracheal intubation, and emergency cricothyrotomy or tracheotomy in a situation where oxygenation and ventilation are impossible. Algorithms describe the procedures and equipment for each variant of difficult airway and decision-making strategies in situations when neither airway nor adequate oxygenation can be provided. Croatian anesthesiologists in most obstetric departments have appropriate equipment, as well as necessary experience in difficult airway management for pregnant women, and modern algorithms from the most developed countries can be adopted and accommodated to our daily practice, as well as incorporated into the training curricula of residents.

Implementation and Outcomes of a Difficult Airway Code Team Composed of Anesthesiologists in a Korean Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Analysis of a Prospective Registry.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, we established an airway call (AC) team composed of anesthesiologists to improve emergency airway management outside the operating room. In this retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from the airway registry, we describe the characteristics of patients attended to and practices by the AC team during the first 4 years of implementation. METHODS: All AC team activations in which an airway intervention was performed by the AC team between June 2017 and May 2021 were analyzed. RESULTS: In all, 359 events were analyzed. Activation was more common outside of working hours (62.1%) and from the intensive care unit (85.0%); 36.2% of AC activations were due to known or anticipated difficult airway, most commonly because of acquired airway anomalies (n = 49), followed by airway edema or bleeding (n = 32) and very young age (≤ 1 years; n = 30). In 71.3% of the cases, successful intubation was performed by the AC team at the first attempt. However, three or more attempts were performed in 33 cases. The most common device used for successful intubation was the videolaryngoscope (59.7%). Tracheal intubation by the AC team failed in nine patients, who then required surgical airway insertion by otolaryngologists. However, there were no airway-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: When coupled with appropriate assistance from an otolaryngologist AC system, an AC team composed of anesthesiologists could be an efficient way to provide safe airway management outside the operating room. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0006643.

Formation of an Airway Lead Network: an essential patient safety initiative.

We outline the history, implementation and clinical impact of the formation of an Airway Lead Network. Although recommendations to improve patient safety in airway management are published and revised regularly, uniform implementation of such guidelines are applied sporadically throughout the hospital and prehospital settings. The primary roles of an Airway Lead are to ensure supply, quality and storage of airway equipment, promote the use of current practice guidelines as well as the organisation of training and audits. Locally, the Airway Lead may chair a multi-disciplinary airway committee within their organisation; an Airway Lead Network enables Airway Leads to share common problems and solutions to promote optimal airway management on a national level. Support from governing bodies is an essential part of this structure.

An assessment of introducers used for airway management.

Different introducers are available to assist with tracheal intubation. Subtle differences in the design of introducers can have a marked effect on safety and performance. The Difficult Airway Society's Airway Device Evaluation Project Team proposal states that devices should only be purchased for which there is at least a case-control study on patients assessing airway devices. However, resources are not currently available to carry out a case-control study on all introducers available on the market. This study comprised a laboratory and manikin-based investigation to identify introducers that could be suitable for clinical investigation. We included six different introducers in laboratory-based assessments (design characteristics) and manikin-based assessments involving the participation of 30 anaesthetists. Each anaesthetist attempted placement in the manikin's trachea with each of the six introducers in a random order. Outcomes included first-time insertion success rate; insertion success rate; number of attempts; time to placement; and distance placed. Each anaesthetist also completed a questionnaire. First-time insertion success rate depended significantly on the introducer used (p = 0.0016) and varied from 47% (Armstrong and P3) to 77% (Intersurgical and Frova). Median time to placement (including oesophageal placement) varied from 10 s (Eschmann and Frova) to 20 s (P3) (p = 0.0025). Median time to successful placement in the trachea varied from 9 s (Frova) to 22 s (Armstrong) (p = 0.037). We found that the Armstrong and P3 devices were not as acceptable as other introducers and, without significant improvements to their design and characteristics, the use of these devices in studies on patients is questionable. The study protocol is suitable for differentiating between different introducers and could be used as a basis for assessing other types of devices.

2022 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway.

The American Society of Anesthesiologists; All India Difficult Airway Association; European Airway Management Society; European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care; Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care; Learning, Teaching and Investigation Difficult Airway Group; Society for Airway Management; Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia; Society for Head and Neck Anesthesia; Society for Pediatric Anesthesia; Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists; and the Trauma Anesthesiology Society present an updated report of the Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway.

Establishing quality indicators for pre-hospital advanced airway management: a modified nominal group technique consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Pre-hospital advanced airway management is a complex intervention composed of numerous steps, interactions, and variables that can be delivered to a high standard in the pre-hospital setting. Standard research methods have struggled to evaluate this complex intervention because of considerable heterogeneity in patients, providers, and techniques. In this study, we aimed to develop a set of quality indicators to evaluate pre-hospital advanced airway management. METHODS: We used a modified nominal group technique consensus process comprising three email rounds and a consensus meeting among a group of 16 international experts. The final set of quality indicators was assessed for usability according to the National Quality Forum Measure Evaluation Criteria. RESULTS: Seventy-seven possible quality indicators were identified through a narrative literature review with a further 49 proposed by panel experts. A final set of 17 final quality indicators composed of three structure-, nine process-, and five outcome-related indicators, was identified through the consensus process. The quality indicators cover all steps of pre-hospital advanced airway management from preoxygenation and use of rapid sequence induction to the ventilatory state of the patient at hospital delivery, prior intubation experience of provider, success rates and complications. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a set of quality indicators for pre-hospital advanced airway management that represent a practical tool to measure, report, analyse, and monitor quality and performance of this complex intervention.