Dataset Information

Protection afforded by respirators when performing endotracheal intubation using a direct laryngoscope, GlideScope®, and i-gel® device: A randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: Emergency physicians are at risk of infection during invasive procedures, and wearing a respirator can reduce this risk. The aim of this study was to determine whether the protection afforded by a respirator during intubation is affected by the type of airway device used. In this randomized crossover study, 26 emergency physicians underwent quantitative fit tests for a N95 respirator (cup-type or fold-type) before and during intubation with a direct laryngoscope, GlideScope®, or i-gel® airway device. The primary outcome was the fit factor value of the respirator and the secondary outcome was the level of acceptable protection provided (percentage of fit factor scores above 100). Compared with the GlideScope and i-gel device, the fit factor values and level of acceptable protection provided were lower when physicians wore the cup-type respirator while intubating using the direct laryngoscope (200 fit factor [152-200] and 200 fit factor [121.25-200] versus 166 fit factor [70-200], 100% and 100% versus 75%, respectively; all P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in the fit factor value or level of acceptable protection provided when the physicians wore the fold-type respirator while intubating using any of the three airway devices (all P > 0.05). The type of airway device used for endotracheal intubation may influence the protective performance of some types of respirators. Emergency physicians should consider the effects of airway device types on fit factor of N95 respirators, when they perform intubation at risk of infection.

SUBMITTER: Kang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5909605 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protection afforded by respirators when performing endotracheal intubation using a direct laryngoscope, GlideScope®, and i-gel® device: A randomized trial.

Kang Hyunggoo H Lee Yoonje Y Lee Sanghyun S Song Yeongtak Y Lim Tae Ho TH Oh Jaehoon J Lee Juncheol J Shin Hyungoo H

PloS one 20180419 4

Emergency physicians are at risk of infection during invasive procedures, and wearing a respirator can reduce this risk. The aim of this study was to determine whether the protection afforded by a respirator during intubation is affected by the type of airway device used. In this randomized crossover study, 26 emergency physicians underwent quantitative fit tests for a N95 respirator (cup-type or fold-type) before and during intubation with a direct laryngoscope, GlideScope®, or i-gel® airway de ...[more]

PMID: 29672533

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: General anesthesia in rabbits is associated with higher morbidity and mortality relative to other mammalian species commonly anesthetized. Unique challenges related to endotracheal intubation (ETI) in rabbits contribute to this risk. Objective: To improve the safety of ETI in rabbits, we developed two new ETI methods using a supraglottic airway device (v-gel®) to facilitate ETI and compared them to traditional "blind" technique. We hypothesized that relative to blind ETI, v-gel® guided ETI provides more successful placement of the endotracheal tube (ETT) in a shorter time. Outcomes included number of intubation attempts, time for achievement of ETI, endoscopic findings, and serial arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis. Study Design: Prospective, randomized, and crossover study. Methods: Ten female, New Zealand White rabbits aged 1-2 years old, weighing 4.3 ± 0.4 kg, were anesthetized four times. Each time, ETI was performed with one of the following techniques: Method 1: v-gel® guided, polypropylene catheter facilitated, intubation using a cuffed ETT; Method 2: v-gel® guided intubation using an uncuffed ETT directly inserted through the device airway channel; Method 3 and 4: Blind intubation with uncuffed or cuffed ETT. Upper airway endoscopy was performed before intubation attempts and after extubation. Serial ABG analysis was performed during the peri-intubation process. Results: V-gel® guided techniques allowed successful ETI on the initial attempt for 9/10 subjects using Method 1 and 10/10 using Method 2. Relative to the v-gel® guided techniques, the blind techniques required more intubation attempts. A median of 2 attempts (range 1-4, p < 0.007) were required for the uncuffed ETT, and a median of 4 (range 1-4, p < 0.001) attempts were performed for the cuffed ETT. The time to perform successful ETI was positively correlated with the number of attempts (ρ = 0.82), while successful ETI was negatively correlated with number of attempts (ρ = -0.82). Endoscopic findings showed mild to moderate laryngeal trauma. In the absence of oxygen supplementation, ABG analysis demonstrated low PaO2, while PaCO2 remained consistent. Conclusions: Facilitated ETI using the v-gel® guided techniques allows for the rapid establishment of a secure airway to provide ventilatory support for rabbits undergoing general anesthesia.

Project description:BACKGROUND:During an emergency endotracheal intubation, rapid sequence induction intubation (RSII) with cricoid pressure (CP) is frequently implemented to prevent aspiration pneumonia. We evaluated the CVS in endotracheal intubation in RSII with CP, in comparison with a direct laryngoscope (DL). METHODS:One hundred fifty patients were randomly assigned to one of three groups: the CVS as a video stylet (CVS-V) group, the CVS as a lightwand (CVS-L) group and DL group. Primary outcomes were to assess the power of the CVS, compared with DL, regarding the first attempt success rate and intubation time in simulated RSII with CP. Secondary outcomes were to examine hemodynamic stress response and the incidence of complications. RESULTS:The first attempt success rates within 30 s and within 60 s were higher in CVS-V and DL group than those in CVS-L group (p = 0.006 and 0.037, respectively). The intergroup difference for intubation success rate within 30 s was nonsignificant and almost all the patients were successfully intubated within 60 s (98% for CVS-L and DL group, 96% for CVS-L group). Kaplan-Meier estimator demonstrated the median intubation time was 10.6 s [95% CI, 7.5 to 13.7] in CVS-V group, 14.6 s [95% CI, 11.1 to 18.0] in CVS-L group and 16.5 s [95% CI, 15.7 to 17.3] in DL group (p = 0.023 by the log-rank test). However, the difference was nonsignificant after Sidak's adjustment. The intergroup differences for hemodynamic stress response, sore throat and mucosa injury incidence were also nonsignificant. CONCLUSIONS:The CVS-D and DL provide a higher first attempt intubation success rate within 30 and 60 s in intubation with CP; the intubation time for the CVS-V was nonsignificantly shorter than that for the other two intubation methods. Almost all the patients can be successfully intubated with any of the three intubation methods within 60 s. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03841890 , registered on February 15, 2019 (retrospectively registered).

Dataset Information

Protection afforded by respirators when performing endotracheal intubation using a direct laryngoscope, GlideScope®, and i-gel® device: A randomized trial.

Publications

Protection afforded by respirators when performing endotracheal intubation using a direct laryngoscope, GlideScope®, and i-gel® device: A randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets