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.

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.

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.

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.

A surgical needs assessment for airway rapid responses: A retrospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Airway rapid response (ARR) teams can be compiled of anesthesiologists, intensivists, otolaryngologists, general and thoracic surgeons, respiratory therapists, and nurses. The optimal composition of an ARR team is unknown but considered to be resource intensive. We sought to determine the type of technical procedures performed during an ARR activation to inform team composition. METHODS: A large urban quaternary academic medical center retrospective review (2016-2019) of adult ARR patients was performed. Analysis included ARR demographics, patient characteristics, characteristics of preexisting tracheostomies, incidence of concomitant conditions, and procedures completed during an ARR event. RESULTS: A total of 345 ARR patients with a median age of 60 years (interquartile range, 47-69 years) and a median time to ARR conclusion of 28 minutes (interquartile range, 14-47 minutes) were included. About 41.7% of the ARR had a preexisting tracheostomy. Overall, there were 130 procedures completed that can be performed by a general surgeon in addition to the 122 difficult intubations. These procedures included recannulation of a tracheostomy, operative intervention, new emergent tracheostomy or cricothyroidotomy, thoracostomy tube placement, initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and pericardiocentesis. CONCLUSION: Highly technical procedures are common during an ARR, including procedures related to tracheostomies. Surgeons possess a comprehensive skill set that is unique and comprehensive with respect to airway emergencies. This distinctive skill set creates an important role within the ARR team to perform these urgent technical procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiologic/prognostic, level III.

Safety of airway clearance combined with bronchodilator and hypertonic saline in non-hospitalized infants with acute bronchiolitis.

BACKGROUND: Acute viral bronchiolitis (AVB) is associated with significant morbidity and no study has addressed the safety of airway clearance techniques (ACT) for non-hospitalized infants. This study aimed to evaluate the safety of the use of ACT combined with bronchodilator and hypertonic saline in non-hospitalized children with the first episode of AVB. METHODS: A quasi-experimental study of infants aged 2-12 months, with a clinical diagnosis of AVB (mild to moderate), was performed. The Wang score, breathing frequency, oxygen saturation (SpO2), heart rate (HR), and the presence of adverse events were evaluated before, 10 and 20 min after the application of a protocol including ACT (nasal irrigation, prolonged slow expiration, and provoked cough), bronchodilator and hypertonic saline inhalation. A total of 265 infants, mean age 6.86±3.01 months, were included. RESULTS: A reduction (p<0.001) in the Wang score and in the breathing frequency as well as an increase in SpO2 were found. There was also a transient HR increment at 10 min followed by a reduction at 20 min (p<0.05). The proportion of patients presenting with chest retraction and wheezing decreased (p<0.001) after treatment. Most of the children (88.3%) did not experience adverse events. A post-treatment increment (p<0.001) of patients classified as having normal values, as well as a decrease in those with mild and moderate AVB, was found for the Wang score levels. CONCLUSION: The use of ACT combined with bronchodilator and hypertonic saline was safe, immediately after treatment, for non-hospitalized children with mild to moderate AVB. No clinically important deterioration or adverse events were identified in the follow-up period.

Clinical recommendations for in-hospital airway management during aerosol-transmitting procedures in the setting of a viral pandemic.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), can lead to severe pneumonia and multiorgan failure. While most of the infected patients develop no or only mild symptoms, some need respiratory support or even invasive ventilation. The exact route of transmission is currently under investigation. While droplet exposure and direct contact seem to be the most significant ways of transmitting the disease, aerosol transmission appears to be possible under circumstances favored by high viral load. Despite the use of personal protective equipment (PPE), this situation potentially puts healthcare workers at risk of infection, especially if they are involved in airway management. Various recommendations and international guidelines aim to protect healthcare workers, although evidence-based research confirming the benefits of these approaches is still scarce. In this article, we summarize the current literature and recommendations for airway management of COVID-19 patients.

Recommendations for developing clinical care protocols during pandemics: From theory and practice.

In 2019, a novel coronavirus called the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 led to the outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019, which was deemed a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Owing to the accelerated rate of mortality and utilization of hospital resources, health care systems had to adapt to these major changes. This affected patient care across all disciplines and specifically within the perioperative services. In this review, we discuss the strategies and pitfalls of how perioperative services in a large academic medical center responded to the initial onset of a pandemic, adjustments made to airway management and anesthesia specialty services - including critical care medicine, obstetric anesthesiology, and cardiac anesthesiology - and strategies for reopening surgical caseload during the pandemic.

Breathing variability-implications for anaesthesiology and intensive care.

The respiratory system reacts instantaneously to intrinsic and extrinsic inputs. This adaptability results in significant fluctuations in breathing parameters, such as respiratory rate, tidal volume, and inspiratory flow profiles. Breathing variability is influenced by several conditions, including sleep, various pulmonary diseases, hypoxia, and anxiety disorders. Recent studies have suggested that weaning failure during mechanical ventilation may be predicted by low respiratory variability. This review describes methods for quantifying breathing variability, summarises the conditions and comorbidities that affect breathing variability, and discusses the potential implications of breathing variability for anaesthesia and intensive care.

A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during supraglottic airway insertion and removal.

Many guidelines consider supraglottic airway use to be an aerosol-generating procedure. This status requires increased levels of personal protective equipment, fallow time between cases and results in reduced operating theatre efficiency. Aerosol generation has never been quantitated during supraglottic airway use. To address this evidence gap, we conducted real-time aerosol monitoring (0.3-10-µm diameter) in ultraclean operating theatres during supraglottic airway insertion and removal. This showed very low background particle concentrations (median (IQR [range]) 1.6 (0-3.1 [0-4.0]) particles.l-1 ) against which the patient's tidal breathing produced a higher concentration of aerosol (4.0 (1.3-11.0 [0-44]) particles.l-1 , p = 0.048). The average aerosol concentration detected during supraglottic airway insertion (1.3 (1.0-4.2 [0-6.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 11), and removal (2.1 (0-17.5 [0-26.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 12) was no different to tidal breathing (p = 0.31 and p = 0.84, respectively). Comparison of supraglottic airway insertion and removal with a volitional cough (104 (66-169 [33-326]), n = 27), demonstrated that supraglottic airway insertion/removal sequences produced <4% of the aerosol compared with a single cough (p < 0.001). A transient aerosol increase was recorded during one complicated supraglottic airway insertion (which initially failed to provide a patent airway). Detailed analysis of this event showed an atypical particle size distribution and we subsequently identified multiple sources of non-respiratory aerosols that may be produced during airway management and can be considered as artefacts. These findings demonstrate supraglottic airway insertion/removal generates no more bio-aerosol than breathing and far less than a cough. This should inform the design of infection prevention strategies for anaesthetists and operating theatre staff caring for patients managed with supraglottic airways.

Unintended consequences: The impact of airway management modifications introduced in response to COVID-19 on intubations in a tertiary centre emergency department.

OBJECTIVE: In response to COVID-19, we introduced and examined the effect of a raft of modifications to standard practice on adverse events and first-attempt success (FAS) associated with ED intubation. METHODS: An analysis of prospectively collected registry data of all ED intubations over a 3-year period at an Australian Major Trauma Centre. During the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in Australia, we introduced modifications to standard practice to reduce the risk to staff including: aerosolisation reduction, comprehensive personal protective equipment for all intubations, regular low fidelity simulation with 'sign-off' for all medical and nursing staff, senior clinician laryngoscopist and the introduction of pre-drawn medications. RESULTS: There were 783 patients, 136 in the COVID-19 era and 647 in the pre-COVID-19 comparator group. The rate of hypoxia was higher during the COVID-19 era compared to pre-COVID-19 (18.4% vs 9.6%, P < 0.005). This occurred despite the FAS rate remaining very high (95.6% vs 93.8%, P = 0.42) and intubation being undertaken by more senior laryngoscopists (consultant 55.9% during COVID-19 vs 22.6% pre-COVID-19, P < 0.001). Other adverse events were similar before and during COVID-19 (hypotension 12.5% vs 7.9%, P = 0.082; bradycardia 1.5% vs 0.5%, P = 0.21). Video laryngoscopy was more likely to be used during COVID-19 (95.6% vs 82.5%, P < 0.001) and induction of anaesthesia more often used ketamine (66.9% vs 42.3%, P < 0.001) and rocuronium (86.8% vs 52.1%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This raft of modifications to ED intubation was associated with significant increase in hypoxia despite a very high FAS rate and more senior first laryngoscopist.

Trends in combat casualty care following the publication of clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The current study explores the trends in the application of combat casualty care following the publication of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in five domains for 13 years. METHODS: The Israel Defense Forces Trauma Registry was used to assess practice and adherence to guidelines in five domains: (a) crystalloid transfusions, (b) tranexamic acid use, (c) freeze-dried plasma use, (d) chest decompression, and (e) airway management. All patients injured between January 2006 and December 2018 were included in the analysis. Trends were analyzed and presented monthly using linear regression and were compared using the Chow test. RESULTS: The mean ± SD crystalloid volume transfused decreased from 1,179 ± 653 mL in 2006 to 466 ± 202 mL in 2018 (B = 0.016, 0.006-0.044). The proportion of patients with an indication treated with tranexamic acid dropped from 8% (238 of 2,979 patients) to 2.5% (60 of 2,356 patients) following the stricter guideline's publication. Freeze-dried plasma administration in indicated casualties rose from 12.5% in 2013 to 48% in 2018 (B = 1.63, 1.3-2.05). The overall proportion of casualties undergoing chest decompression rose from 1% (61 of 6,036 casualties) to 1.5% (155 of 10,493 casualties) following the release of a new CPG in 2012 (p = 0.013). There were no significant trends in intubation ratios before (B = 0.987, 0.953-1.02) or after 2012 (B = 10.2, 0.996-1.05). CONCLUSION: Some aspects demonstrate the desired trends in response to new CPGs; in others, initial improvement is achieved but followed by stagnation. In some medical care aspects, completely unexpected and undesirable trends are observed. Every change and update in CPGs should be based on reliable data. The effect of every change must be monitored carefully to ensure adequate adherence to lifesaving guidelines. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Epidemiological study, level IV.

Optimizing airway management and ventilation during prehospital advanced life support in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A narrative review.

Airway management and ventilation are essential components of cardiopulmonary resuscitation to achieve oxygen delivery in order to prevent hypoxic injury and increase the chance of survival. Weighing the relative benefits and downsides, the best approach is a staged strategy; start with a focus on high-quality chest compressions and defibrillation, then optimize mask ventilation while preparing for advanced airway management with a supraglottic airway device. Endotracheal intubation can still be indicated, but has the largest downsides of all advanced airway techniques. Whichever stage of airway management, ventilation and chest compression quality should be closely monitored. Capnography has many advantages and should be used routinely. Optimizing ventilation strategies, harmonizing ventilation with mechanical chest compression devices, and implementation in complex and stressful environments are challenges we need to face through collaborative innovation, research, and implementation.

Difficult Airway Management in Adult Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: Statement by the Society of Airway Management.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disease, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), often results in severe hypoxemia requiring airway management. Because SARS-CoV-2 virus is spread via respiratory droplets, bag-mask ventilation, intubation, and extubation may place health care workers (HCW) at risk. While existing recommendations address airway management in patients with COVID-19, no guidance exists specifically for difficult airway management. Some strategies normally recommended for difficult airway management may not be ideal in the setting of COVID-19 infection. To address this issue, the Society for Airway Management (SAM) created a task force to review existing literature and current practice guidelines for difficult airway management by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. The SAM task force created recommendations for the management of known or suspected difficult airway in the setting of known or suspected COVID-19 infection. The goal of the task force was to optimize successful airway management while minimizing exposure risk. Each member conducted a literature review on specific clinical practice section utilizing standard search engines (PubMed, Ovid, Google Scholar). Existing recommendations and evidence for difficult airway management in the COVID-19 context were developed. Each specific recommendation was discussed among task force members and modified until unanimously approved by all task force members. Elements of Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Reporting Checklist for dissemination of clinical practice guidelines were utilized to develop this statement. Airway management in the COVID-19 patient increases HCW exposure risk. Difficult airway management often takes longer and may involve multiple procedures with aerosolization potential, and strict adherence to personal protective equipment (PPE) protocols is mandatory to reduce risk to providers. When a patient's airway risk assessment suggests that awake tracheal intubation is an appropriate choice of technique, and procedures that may cause increased aerosolization of secretions should be avoided. Optimal preoxygenation before induction with a tight seal facemask may be performed to reduce the risk of hypoxemia. Unless the patient is experiencing oxygen desaturation, positive pressure bag-mask ventilation after induction may be avoided to reduce aerosolization. For optimal intubating conditions, patients should be anesthetized with full muscle relaxation. Videolaryngoscopy is recommended as a first-line strategy for airway management. If emergent invasive airway access is indicated, then we recommend a surgical technique such as scalpel-bougie-tube, rather than an aerosolizing generating procedure, such as transtracheal jet ventilation. This statement represents recommendations by the SAM task force for the difficult airway management of adults with COVID-19 with the goal to optimize successful airway management while minimizing the risk of clinician exposure.

Rabbit training model for establishing an emergency front of neck airway in children.

BACKGROUND: A 'cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate' (CICO) situation is rare in paediatric anaesthesia, but can always occur in children under certain emergency situations. There is a paucity of literature on specific procedures for securing an emergency invasive airway in children younger than 6 yr. A modified emergency front of neck access (eFONA) technique using a rabbit cadaver model was developed to teach invasive airway protection in a CICO situation in children. METHODS: After watching an instructional video of our eFONA technique (tracheotomy, intubation with Frova catheter over which a tracheal tube is inserted), 29 anaesthesiologists performed two separate attempts on rabbit cadavers. The primary outcome was the success rate and the performance time overall and in subgroups of trained and untrained participants. RESULTS: The overall success rate across 58 tracheotomies was 95% and the median performance time was 67 s (95% confidence interval [CI], 56-76). Performance time decreased from the first to the second attempt from 72 s (95% CI, 57-81) to 61 s (95% CI, 50-81). Performance time was 59 s (95% CI, 49-79) for untrained participants and 72 s (95% CI, 62-81) for trained participants. Clinical experience and age of the participants was not correlated with performance time, whereas the length of the tracheotomy incision showed a significant correlation (P=0.006). CONCLUSION: This eFONA training model for children facilitates rapid skill acquisition under realistic anatomical conditions to perform an emergency invasive airway in children younger than 2 yr.

Oral Intubation Attempts in Patients With a Laryngectomy: A Significant Safety Threat.

It is impossible to secure the airway of a patient with "neck-only" breathing transorally or transnasally. Surgical removal of the larynx (laryngectomy) or tracheal rerouting (tracheoesophageal diversion or laryngotracheal separation) creates anatomic discontinuity. Misguided attempts at oral intubation of neck breathers may cause hypoxic brain injury or death. We present national data from the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, the American Head and Neck Society, and the United Kingdom's National Reporting and Learning Service. Over half of US otolaryngologist respondents reported instances of attempted oral intubations among patients with laryngectomy, with a mortality rate of 26%. UK audits similarly revealed numerous resuscitation efforts where misunderstanding of neck breather status led to harm or death. Such data underscore the critical importance of staff education, patient engagement, effective signage, and systems-based best practices to reliably clarify neck breather status and provide necessary resources for safe patient airway management.