Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Jeong H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8763879 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Incidence of difficult endotracheal intubation ranges between 3 and 10%. Bougies have been recommended as an airway adjunct for difficult intubation, but reported success rates are variable. A new generation flexible tip bougie appears promising but was not investigated so far. We therefore compared the new flexible tip with a standard bougie in simulated normal and difficult airway scenarios, and used by experienced anesthesiologists. METHODS:We conducted a observational, randomized, cross-over simulation study. Following standardized training, experienced anesthesiologists performed endotracheal intubation using a Macintosh blade and one of the bougies in six different airway scenarios in a randomized sequence: normal airway, tongue edema, pharyngeal obstruction, manual cervical inline stabilization, cervical collar stabilization, cervical collar stabilization and pharyngeal obstruction. Overall success rate with a maximum of 3 intubation attempts was the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included number of intubation attempts, time to intubation and dental compression. RESULTS:Thirty-two anesthesiologist participated in this study between January 2019 and May 2019. Overall success rate was similar for the flexible tip bougie and the standard bougie. The flexible tip bougie tended to need less intubation attempts in more difficult airway scenarios. Time to intubation was less if using the flexible tip bougie compared to the standard bougie. Reduced severity of dental compression was noted for the flexible tip bougie in difficult airway scenarios except cervical collar stabilization. CONCLUSION:In this simulation study of normal and difficult airways scenarios, overall success rate was similar for the flexible tip and standard bougie. Especially in more difficult airway scenarios, less intubation attempts, and less optimization maneuvers were needed if using the flexible tip bougie. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT03733158. 7th November 2018.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The development and implementation of a Cardiogenic Shock initiative focused on increased disease awareness, early multidisciplinary team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, and hemodynamic-guided management and improvement of outcomes in cardiogenic shock. OBJECTIVE:The objectives of this study are (1) to collect retrospective clinical outcomes for acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock and acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock, and compare current versus historical survival rates and clinical outcomes; (2) to evaluate Inova Heart and Vascular Institute site specific outcomes before and after initiation of the Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017; (3) to compare outcomes related to early implementation of mechanical circulatory support and hemodynamic-guided management versus historical controls; (4) to assess survival to discharge rate in patients receiving intervention from the designated shock team and (5) create a clinical archive of Cardiogenic Shock patient characteristics for future analysis and the support of translational research studies. METHODS:This is an observational, retrospective, single center study. Retrospective and prospective data will be collected in patients treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute with documented cardiogenic shock as a result of acute decompensated heart failure or acute myocardial infarction. This registry will include data from patients prior to and after the initiation of the multidisciplinary Cardiogenic Shock team on January 1, 2017. Clinical outcomes associated with early multidisciplinary team intervention will be analyzed. In the study group, all patients evaluated for documented cardiogenic shock (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) treated at the Inova Heart and Vascular Institute by the Cardiogenic Shock team will be included. An additional historical Inova Heart and Vascular Institute control group will be analyzed as a comparator. Means with standard deviations will be reported for outcomes. For categorical variables, frequencies and percentages will be presented. For continuous variables, the number of subjects, mean, standard deviation, minimum, 25th percentile, median, 75th percentile and maximum will be reported. Reported differences will include standard errors and 95% CI. RESULTS:Preliminary data analysis for the year 2017 has been completed. Compared to a baseline 2016 survival rate of 47.0%, from 2017 to 2018, CS survival rates were increased to 57.9% (58/110) and 81.3% (81/140), respectively (P=.01 for both). Study data will continue to be collected until December 31, 2018. CONCLUSIONS:The preliminary results of this study demonstrate that the INOVA SHOCK team approach to the treatment of Cardiogenic Shock with early team activation, rapid initiation of mechanical circulatory support, hemodynamic-guided management, and strict protocol adherence is associated with superior clinical outcomes: survival to discharge and overall survival when compared to 2015 and 2016 outcomes prior to Shock team initiation. What may limit the generalization of these results of this study to other populations are site specific; expertise of the team, strict algorithm adherence based on the INOVA SHOCK protocol, and staff commitment to timely team activation. Retrospective clinical outcomes (acute decompensated heart failure cardiogenic shock, acute myocardial infarction cardiogenic shock) demonstrated an increase in current survival rates when compared to pre-Cardiogenic Shock team initiation, rapid team activation and diagnosis and timely utilization of mechanical circulatory support. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03378739; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03378739 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/701vstDGd).