King's College London

Research portal

The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management : a randomised, crossover, simulation study. / Schumacher, Jan; Arlidge, James; Dudley, Declan; Sicinski, Marcin; Ahmad, Imran.

In: Anaesthesia, Vol. 75, No. 10, ANAE15102, 01.10.2020, p. 1301-1306.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Schumacher, J, Arlidge, J, Dudley, D, Sicinski, M & Ahmad, I 2020, 'The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study', Anaesthesia, vol. 75, no. 10, ANAE15102, pp. 1301-1306. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15102

APA

Schumacher, J., Arlidge, J., Dudley, D., Sicinski, M., & Ahmad, I. (2020). The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study. Anaesthesia, 75(10), 1301-1306. [ANAE15102]. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15102

Vancouver

Schumacher J, Arlidge J, Dudley D, Sicinski M, Ahmad I. The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study. Anaesthesia. 2020 Oct 1;75(10):1301-1306. ANAE15102. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15102

Author

Schumacher, Jan ; Arlidge, James ; Dudley, Declan ; Sicinski, Marcin ; Ahmad, Imran. / The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management : a randomised, crossover, simulation study. In: Anaesthesia. 2020 ; Vol. 75, No. 10. pp. 1301-1306.

Bibtex Download

@article{dba053b8f1c647e2abb2cc3d7de44c6b,
title = "The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study",
abstract = "The current international COVID-19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air-purifying respirators and powered air-purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty-five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. Treatment times and wearer comfort were determined and compared. In the wearer comfort evaluation form, operators rated mobility, noise, heat, vision and speech intelligibility. All anaesthetists accomplished the treatment objectives of all study arms without adverse events. Total mean (SD) intubation times for the four interventions did not show significant differences between the powered and the standard respirator groups, being 16.4 (8.6) vs. 19.2 (5.2) seconds with the Airtraq{\texttrademark}; 11.4 (3.4) vs. 10.0 (2.1) seconds with the videolaryngoscope; 39.2 (4.5) vs. 40.1 (4.8) seconds with the fibreoptic bronchoscope scope; and 15.4 (5.7) vs. 15.1 (5.0) seconds for standard tracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, respectively. Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.",
keywords = "CBRN, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, difficult airway management, personal protective equipment",
author = "Jan Schumacher and James Arlidge and Declan Dudley and Marcin Sicinski and Imran Ahmad",
year = "2020",
month = oct,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/anae.15102",
language = "English",
volume = "75",
pages = "1301--1306",
journal = "Anaesthesia",
issn = "0003-2409",
publisher = "Wiley",
number = "10",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management

T2 - a randomised, crossover, simulation study

AU - Schumacher, Jan

AU - Arlidge, James

AU - Dudley, Declan

AU - Sicinski, Marcin

AU - Ahmad, Imran

PY - 2020/10/1

Y1 - 2020/10/1

N2 - The current international COVID-19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air-purifying respirators and powered air-purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty-five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. Treatment times and wearer comfort were determined and compared. In the wearer comfort evaluation form, operators rated mobility, noise, heat, vision and speech intelligibility. All anaesthetists accomplished the treatment objectives of all study arms without adverse events. Total mean (SD) intubation times for the four interventions did not show significant differences between the powered and the standard respirator groups, being 16.4 (8.6) vs. 19.2 (5.2) seconds with the Airtraq™; 11.4 (3.4) vs. 10.0 (2.1) seconds with the videolaryngoscope; 39.2 (4.5) vs. 40.1 (4.8) seconds with the fibreoptic bronchoscope scope; and 15.4 (5.7) vs. 15.1 (5.0) seconds for standard tracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, respectively. Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.

AB - The current international COVID-19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air-purifying respirators and powered air-purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty-five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. Treatment times and wearer comfort were determined and compared. In the wearer comfort evaluation form, operators rated mobility, noise, heat, vision and speech intelligibility. All anaesthetists accomplished the treatment objectives of all study arms without adverse events. Total mean (SD) intubation times for the four interventions did not show significant differences between the powered and the standard respirator groups, being 16.4 (8.6) vs. 19.2 (5.2) seconds with the Airtraq™; 11.4 (3.4) vs. 10.0 (2.1) seconds with the videolaryngoscope; 39.2 (4.5) vs. 40.1 (4.8) seconds with the fibreoptic bronchoscope scope; and 15.4 (5.7) vs. 15.1 (5.0) seconds for standard tracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, respectively. Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.

KW - CBRN

KW - COVID-19

KW - SARS-CoV-2

KW - difficult airway management

KW - personal protective equipment

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85085100625&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/anae.15102

DO - 10.1111/anae.15102

M3 - Article

VL - 75

SP - 1301

EP - 1306

JO - Anaesthesia

JF - Anaesthesia

SN - 0003-2409

IS - 10

M1 - ANAE15102

ER -

View graph of relations

© 2020 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454