Dataset Information

Airway management for one lung ventilation during COVID-19 pandemic: a survey within Italian anesthesiologists

ABSTRACT:

Background

Airway management for thoracic surgery represents a high risk setting for SARS-CoV-2 infection diffusion due to complex and invasive airway instrumentation and techniques.

Results

An 18-item questionnaire was submitted to the 56 members of the Thoracic subcommittee of the SIAARTI Cardio-Thoraco-Vascular Research Group to provide a snapshot of current situation and national variability of devices and procedures for airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic. The response rate was 64%. Eighty-three percent of anesthetists declared that they modified their airway management strategies. The Hospital Management considered necessary to provide a complete level 3 personal protective equipment for thoracic anesthetists only in 47% of cases. Double-lumen tube and bronchial blocker were preferred by 53% and 22% of responders to achieve one-lung ventilation respectively. Over 90% of responders considered the videolaryngoscope with separate screen and rapid sequence induction/intubation useful to minimize the infection risk. Thirty-nine percent of participants considered mandatory the bronchoscopic check of airway devices. Vivasight-DL was considered comfortable by more than 50% of responders while protective box and plastic drape were judged as uncomfortable by most of anesthetists.

Conclusions

The survey reveals many changes in the clinical practice due to SARS-CoV-2 outbreak. A certain diffusion of new devices such as the VivaSight-DL and barrier enclosure systems emerged too. Finally, we found that most of Italian hospitals did not recognize thoracic anesthesia as a high-risk specialty for risk of virus diffusion.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s44158-021-00029-0.

SUBMITTER: Rispoli M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8765104 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is a worldwide consensus among experts that guidelines and algorithms on airway management contribute to improved patient safety in anesthesia. The present study aimed to determine the current practice of airway management of German anesthesiologists and assess the safety gap, defined as the difference between observed and recommended practice, amongst these practitioners.ObjectiveTo determine the effect of implementing the guidelines on airway management practice in Germany amongst anesthesiologists and identify potential safety gaps.MethodsA survey was conducted in September 2019 by contacting all registered members of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) via email. The participants were asked about their personal and institutional background, adherence to recommendations of the current German S1 guidelines and availability of airway devices.ResultsA total of 1862 DGAI members completed the questionnaire (response rate 17%). The main outcome was that anesthesiologists mostly adhered to the guidelines, yet certain recommendations, particularly pertaining to specifics of preoxygenation and training, showed a safety gap. More than 90% of participants had a video laryngoscope and half had performed more than 25 awake intubations using a flexible endoscope; however, only 81% had a video laryngoscope with a hyperangulated blade. An estimated 16% of all intubations were performed with a video laryngoscope, and 1 in 4 participants had performed awake intubation with it. Nearly all participants had cared for patients with suspected difficult airways. Half of the participants had already faced a "cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate" (CICO) situation and one in five had to perform an emergency front of neck access (eFONA) at least once. In this case, almost two thirds used puncture-based techniques and one third scalpel-based techniques.ConclusionCurrent practice of airway management showed overall adherence to the current German guidelines on airway management, yet certain areas need to be improved.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a major paradigm shift for intraoperative mechanical ventilator support by the introduction of lung protective ventilation strategies to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications and improve overall clinical outcomes in non-thoracic surgeries. However, there is currently a lack of standardized practice guideline for lung protection during thoracic surgeries that require one-lung ventilation (OLV). This study aimed to collect the expert opinions of the thoracic anesthesiologists in perioperative care for OLV surgery in Taiwan.MethodsThis prospective cross-sectional study was undertaken in 16 tertiary hospitals in Taiwan from January to February 2019. A structured survey form was distributed across the participating hospitals and the thoracic anesthesiologists were invited to complete the form voluntarily. The survey form consisted of three parts, including the basic information of the institutional anesthesia care standards, ventilatory settings for a proposed patient receiving OLV surgery and expert opinions on OLV.ResultsA total of 71 thoracic anesthesiologists responded to the survey. Double-lumen tubes are the most commonly used (93.8%) airway devices for OLV. The most commonly recommended ventilator setting during OLV is a tidal volume of 6-7 ml/kg PBW (67.6%) and a PEEP level of 4-6 cmH2O (73.5%). Dual controlled ventilator modes are used by 44.1% of the anesthesiologists. During OLV, high oxygen fraction (FiO2 > 0.8) is more commonly supplemented to achieve an oxygen saturation higher than 94%. The consensus of anesthesiologists on the indices for lung protection in thoracic surgery is considerably low. Large majority of the anesthesiologists (91.5%) highly recommend that an international clinical practice guideline on the protective lung ventilation strategy for thoracic anesthesia should be established.ConclusionsThis study found that the thoracic anesthesiologists in Taiwan share certain common practices in ventilator support during OLV. However, they are concerned about the lack of fundamental clinical evidences to support the beneficial outcomes of the current lung protective strategies applicable to OLV. Large-scale trials are needed to form an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for thoracic anesthesia.

Project description:BackgroundNo data are available on the working conditions and workload of anesthesiologists during perioperative nighttime work in Italy and on the perceived risks.ResultsWe analyzed 1085 responses out of the 5292 from the whole dataset. Most of the responders (76%) declared working a median of 12 consecutive hours during night shifts, with an irregular nightshift schedule (70%). More than half of the responders stated to receive a call 2-4 (40%) or 5 times or more (25%) to perform emergency procedures and/or ICU activities during night shifts. More than 70% of the responders declared having relaxation rooms for nighttime work (74%) but none to be used after a nightshift before going back home (82%) and no free meals, snacks, or beverages (89%). Furthermore, almost all (95%) of the surveyed anesthesiologists declared not having received specifical training or education on how to work at night, and that no institutional program has been held by the hospital to monitor fatigue or stress for night workers (99%). More than half of the responders stated having the possibility, sometimes (38%) or always (45%), to involve another colleague in difficult medical decisions and to feel comfortable, sometimes (31%) or always (35%), to call the on-call colleague. Participants declared that nighttime work affects their quality of life extremely (14%) or significantly (63%), and that sleep deprivation, fatigue, and current working conditions may reduce performance (67%) and increase risk for the patients (74%).ConclusionsItalian anesthesiologists declare current nighttime practice to negatively affect their quality of life, and their performance, and are thus concerned for their patients' safety. Proper education on night work, starting from traineeship, and implementing institutional programs to monitor stress and fatigue of operators and to support them during nighttime work could be a mean to improve nighttime work conditions and safety for both patients and healthcare workers.