A simulated 'can't intubate, can't oxygenate' manikin crossover study investigating a modified front-of-neck access airway device.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-23 DOI:10.1177/0310057X241266861
Stuart Paterson, Zeik Devereaux-McLean, Georgia Mohler, Dheeraj Sharma, Malcolm B Anderson, Adam J Mahoney
{"title":"A simulated 'can't intubate, can't oxygenate' manikin crossover study investigating a modified front-of-neck access airway device.","authors":"Stuart Paterson, Zeik Devereaux-McLean, Georgia Mohler, Dheeraj Sharma, Malcolm B Anderson, Adam J Mahoney","doi":"10.1177/0310057X241266861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A 'can't intubate, can't oxygenate' (CICO) situation is an uncommon and time-critical emergency. Many institutions have adopted a 'scalpel-bougie-endotracheal tube (ETT)' technique based on evidence produced by the 4th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and 2015 Difficult Airway Society guidelines. We made a modification to the traditional 'scalpel-bougie-ETT' technique, using a shortened bougie and replacing the ETT with a cuffed Melker airway in a preassembled device (called 'Secure Airway for Front-of-neck Emergencies' (SAFE airway device)), which we felt might reduce cognitive load on a single operator in an emergency CICO situation. We then performed a simulation crossover study using 20 volunteer anaesthetic doctors to compare this modification with the traditional technique. After a standardised pre-recorded video demonstration, participants performed simulated tube insertion using both the standard 'scalpel-bougie-ETT' technique and the SAFE airway device in randomised order. Participants were filmed for accurate timestamping. The primary outcome was time to successful tube insertion while secondary outcomes included number of attempts and ease of insertion. Overall time to cuff inflation was shorter, statistically and practically, with the SAFE airway device compared with the ETT (median 30 <i>vs</i>. 52 seconds, <i>P</i> < 0.001). Twenty-five percent of participants required multiple attempts using the ETT method versus 5% using the SAFE airway device, which was also rated as being easier to use. This study demonstrates that the SAFE airway device was fast, effective, easy to use and acceptable to airway practitioners in a simulated manikin environment. These findings indicate that further studies of the SAFE airway device are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":7746,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia and Intensive Care","volume":" ","pages":"63-69"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia and Intensive Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057X241266861","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A 'can't intubate, can't oxygenate' (CICO) situation is an uncommon and time-critical emergency. Many institutions have adopted a 'scalpel-bougie-endotracheal tube (ETT)' technique based on evidence produced by the 4th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and 2015 Difficult Airway Society guidelines. We made a modification to the traditional 'scalpel-bougie-ETT' technique, using a shortened bougie and replacing the ETT with a cuffed Melker airway in a preassembled device (called 'Secure Airway for Front-of-neck Emergencies' (SAFE airway device)), which we felt might reduce cognitive load on a single operator in an emergency CICO situation. We then performed a simulation crossover study using 20 volunteer anaesthetic doctors to compare this modification with the traditional technique. After a standardised pre-recorded video demonstration, participants performed simulated tube insertion using both the standard 'scalpel-bougie-ETT' technique and the SAFE airway device in randomised order. Participants were filmed for accurate timestamping. The primary outcome was time to successful tube insertion while secondary outcomes included number of attempts and ease of insertion. Overall time to cuff inflation was shorter, statistically and practically, with the SAFE airway device compared with the ETT (median 30 vs. 52 seconds, P < 0.001). Twenty-five percent of participants required multiple attempts using the ETT method versus 5% using the SAFE airway device, which was also rated as being easier to use. This study demonstrates that the SAFE airway device was fast, effective, easy to use and acceptable to airway practitioners in a simulated manikin environment. These findings indicate that further studies of the SAFE airway device are warranted.

一项模拟“不能插管,不能充氧”的人体交叉研究,研究一种改良的颈部前通道气道装置。
“不能插管,不能充氧”(CICO)的情况是一种罕见的、时间紧迫的紧急情况。根据皇家麻醉师学院第四次国家审计项目和2015年困难气道协会指南提供的证据,许多机构采用了“手术刀-导管-气管内管”技术。我们对传统的“手术刀-bougie-ETT”技术进行了改进,使用缩短的bougie,并用预先组装的设备(称为“颈前紧急安全气道”(SAFE气道设备))中的袖口Melker气道代替ETT,我们认为这可能会减少紧急CICO情况下单个操作员的认知负荷。然后,我们对20名志愿麻醉医生进行了模拟交叉研究,将这种修改与传统技术进行比较。在标准化的预录制视频演示后,参与者以随机顺序使用标准的“手术刀-布吉- ett”技术和SAFE气道装置进行模拟插管。参与者被拍摄下来,以准确地记录时间。主要结果是成功插入管的时间,次要结果包括尝试次数和插入难易程度。与ETT相比,SAFE气道装置的袖带充气总时间更短(中位数30秒vs. 52秒,P
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
150
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Anaesthesia and Intensive Care is an international journal publishing timely, peer reviewed articles that have educational value and scientific merit for clinicians and researchers associated with anaesthesia, intensive care medicine, and pain medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信