key: cord-0890757-tg8aaulf authors: Schumacher, Jan; Carvalho, Clarissa; Greig, Paul; Ragbourne, Sophie; Ahmad, Imran title: Influence of respiratory protective equipment on simulated advanced airway skills by specialist tracheal intubation teams during the COVID-19 pandemic date: 2021-05-15 journal: nan DOI: 10.1016/j.tacc.2021.05.001 sha: 58b45447513fa544104736717099bb12fb1fcea8 doc_id: 890757 cord_uid: tg8aaulf Background The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of respiratory protective equipment for clinicians performing airway management. Aim To evaluate the impact of powered air-purifying respirators, full-face air-purifying respirators and filtering facepieces on specially trained anaesthesiologists performing difficult airway procedures. Methods All our COVID-19 intubation team members carried out various difficult intubation drills: unprotected, wearing a full-face respirator, a filtering facepiece or a powered respirator. Airway management times and wearer comfort were evaluated and analysed. Results Total mean (SD) intubation times did not show significant differences between the control, the powered, the full-face respirator and the filtering facepiece groups: Airtraq 6.1 (4.4) vs. 5.4 (3.1) vs. 6.1 (5.6) vs. 7.7 (7.6) s; videolaryngoscopy 11.4 (9.0) vs. 7.7 (4.3) vs. 9.8 (8.4) vs. 12.7 (9.8) s; fibreoptic intubation 16.6 (7.8) vs.13.8 (6.7) vs. 13.6 (8.1) vs. 16.9 (9.2) s; and standard endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy 8.1 (3.5) vs. 6.5 (5.6) vs. 6.2 (4.2) vs. 8.0 (4.4) s, respectively. Use of the Airtraq achieved the shortest intubation times. Anaesthesiologists rated temperature and vision significantly better in the powered respirator group. Conclusions: Advanced airway management remains unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used if performed by a specially trained, designated team. Glossary of Terms : AGPs: Aerosol-generating procedures. CBRN: Chemical, Biological and Radio-Nuclear. COVID-19: Coronavirus disease 2019. FFP: Filtering Facepiece. HCID: High consequence infectious diseases. HCW: Healthcare worker. MERIT: Mobile endotracheal rapid intubation team. PAPR: Powered air-purifying respirator. PPE: Personal protective equipment. RPE: Respiratory protective equipment. SARS: Severe acute respiratory syndrome. Conclusions We conclude that when advanced airway skills are performed by a designated, specially trained team, airway management times remain unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used. With more than 144 million cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID- 19) globally and the death toll now exceeding 3 million, the COVID-19 pandemic represents one of the greatest public health challenges in over a century [1] . predominantly causes a viral pneumonia and almost a fifth of hospitalized patients require critical care admission [2] . Up to 88% of these critical care patients require tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation [3, 4] . The airway management of COVID-19 patients requires healthcare professionals to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] . The bioaerosol infection risk to tracheal intubation teams may arise from general patient contact but is especially high during airway management. Intubation, extubation, airway suctioning, noninvasive mechanical ventilation and surgical airway insertion are aerosol-generating procedures [5] [6] [7] . There is now a growing body of evidence that healthcare workers are being infected with SARS-CoV-2 following tracheal intubation of COVID-19 patients [10, 11] . During the Severe Acute Respiratory Distress pandemic in 2003, nearly a quarter of those infected were healthcare workers [12] . In Canada, this was reported to be as high as 43%, with anaesthesiologists amongst the highest risk group to contract the disease [12] [13] [14] . Guidance on infection prevention, control and transmission-based precautions for at risk medical staff when managing patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 has been published by the World Health Organisation and by J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f Public Health England [6, 7] . These guidelines are based on evidence from previous pandemics with regular updates being made as new evidence emerges. When treating patients with highly infectious diseases, healthcare workers must wear adequate respiratory, cutaneous and eye protection [14, 15] . Moreover, aerosolgenerating procedures during airway management require specific infection prevention strategies [16, 17, 18] . Urgent airway management can be difficult even without respiratory protective equipment (RPE). However, it is well established that this can be even more challenging in chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear environments due to limitations posed on mobility, vision and speech intelligibility, as well as the generation of noise and heat when PPE is worn [19] [20] [21] [22] . Respiratory protection devices are designed either as half or full face masks. A half mask respirator is a facepiece which covers the nose, mouth and chin of the wearer and should be worn with a visor for eye protection [23] . They are assigned lower protection factors than full face masks [24] . When full face masks are being used as part of a filtering device, air is either actively drawn into the mask via the filter by the wearer's inspiratory lung-power or from a power assisted filtering device [23] . Powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) consist of a battery-operated turbo unit, a filter and a loose-fitting headtop [23] . There is no need for fit-testing these devices and their design eliminates the issues of heat build-up dead-space ventilation and airflow resistance often seen with the other fit-tested face masks [23, 24] . The current study was designed to measure the impact of PPE on the performance of airway specialists in a simulated airway emergency. intubating techniques and then underwent MDT simulation drills where they performed in-situ intubation and failed intubation drills in full PPE. These were all scored according to the action cards and anyone who missed more than two key steps in the process would be asked to repeat the simulation drills until they successfully completed every step. All simulation training was followed by debriefing sessions to discuss the drills and answer any questions. Experienced anaesthetic nurses made up the rest of the team. Each mobile endotracheal rapid intubation team (MERIT) consisted of two anaesthesiologists and two anaesthesiology nurses. A protocolized, standardised approach was adopted for each intubation where the same action cards were followed; this allowed for the same technique and equipment to be used for every intubation, all of which were practised in the simulation drills. All fourteen consultant anaesthesiologists gave written informed consent after having been given a detailed explanation of the treatment protocol and formal training in PPE use. All volunteers were instructed that they could withdraw from the study at any time. The study applied all classical contraindications for research in respiratory protection (including asthma, claustrophobia or panic disorders). In addition to that, none of the anaesthesiologists who volunteered to participate in the mobile endotracheal rapid intubation team (MERIT) at the beginning of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic were allowed to present any of these contraindications or other co-morbidities making them vulnerable to contracting the disease. This observational crossover study evaluates and compares the impact of different The study consisted of one cohort that undertook the tasks in all four protection levels. The treatment tasks remained identical in each group, that is, intubation using one of the four intubation devices stated below, but we randomised the order in which the three types of RPE and standard operating department attire was worn to counter any learning effects. The order of PPE/ standard operating attire use was determined by sealed envelopes before starting the simulation. The investigator was blinded to the contents of the envelope. All volunteers were briefed on the scenario and the sequence of the tasks; as aforementioned, they additionally received formal training in the RPE used. The required sample size had been established by our previous investigations using the same model [15, [19] [20] [21] [22] and the power calculation was based on a study that measured a standardised airway management scenario using powered respirator hoods [21] . The statistical analysis was performed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Statistics v26.0 (IBM, Armonk, New York, NY, USA). Continuous data were normality tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test; this was followed up by multiple comparisons of the time periods by Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The data of the five-point scale wearer comfort evaluation form was analysed with the Mann-Whitney test. A p value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. volunteered to participate in the study and were able to successfully accomplish all treatment objectives. All airway interventions ended with a successful tracheal tube placement. The treatment times are displayed in Table 1 . Intubation times in all study arms were unaffected by the respiratory protective device used, i.e. airway management times of the Airtraq, the videolaryngoscopy, the fibreoptic intubation and the direct laryngoscopy group were independent of the type of respiratory protection used. Mean fibreoptic intubation times were significantly longer compared to Airtraq, videolaryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy times. Donning times were not affected by the different PPE used. Anaesthesiologists rated their personal sensation of heat build-up and perceived vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group (table 2) . Conversely, noise levels and mobility scored significantly lower in this group compared to the standard respirator and FFP3 mask group. Speech intelligibility scored significantly better in the full-face respirator as well as in the FFP3 respirator group. We also found that the specially trained mobile endotracheal rapid intubation team (MERIT) anaesthesiologists required half the time to complete standard laryngoscopy, Airtraq and fibreoptic intubation using the more challenging Deluxe Laerdal Airway Management Trainer (inflated tongue) compared to our previous pre-COVID-19 study where senior anaesthesiology residents were recruited to intubate the standard Laerdal Airway Management Trainer [28] . Emergency airway management in simulated hazardous chemical, biological and radio-nuclear environments had come into focus following several high-profile terrorist attacks but also pandemics such as SARS in 2003. Most studies comparing the effect of different types of respiratory protection reported a significant impact of PPE on various airway management skills in anaesthesiologists, intensivists or paramedics [19] [20] [21] [22] [26] [27] [28] . This study has found that wearing standard and powered respirators does not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures when performed by an experienced and skilled team. This important and novel finding strongly supports the strategy of having designated intubating teams during healthcare crises like the COVID-19 surge. PPE familiarity, experience and confidence seem to have a major influence on airway management in hazardous environments. These findings contrast with previous publications mainly focussing on chemical, biological and radio-nuclear scenarios [19] [20] [21] [22] [26] [27] [28] where intubation times were prolonged. However, these studies lacked a specially trained and experienced intubation team of anaesthesiology consultants. In a retrospective observational case series of 202 COVID-19 intubations, Yao and colleagues demonstrated that a highly skilled intubation team who used tools that they were most comfortable with resulted in a first attempt success rate of 89%, with all patients successfully intubated without the need for rescue front of neck access techniques [29] . This study demonstrates the value of using a well-trained and designated intubation team to perform these challenging intubations. In sight of our results, we are in full agreement with one of the key messages of Bainbridge's editorial [30] that training for anaesthesiologists regarding infectious disease control and prevention should start in residency: it needs to include in-depth knowledge concerning aerosolgenerating procedures and requirements for RPE, as well as training of technical skills like donning, doffing and airway management when using PPE. Prospective clinical research in such high stake's conditions are very difficult to achieve. To address this, we have simulated difficult airway settings in manikins, with all subjects wearing the various PPE devices. The value and relevance of manikinbased research has been questioned [31, 32] but a systematic review of airway management research over a period between 2006-17 revealed that manikin studies accounted for over a fifth of these. Manikin studies therefore do play an important role in airway management studies but their benefits on clinical practice are still a matter of debate [33] . When comparing the intubation times across all four groups in our study, there was no significant difference found between the various types of respiratory protective devices used, demonstrating that even in this setting a specially trained and skilled healthcare workers is unlikely to be affected by the device used. Given the novelty of COVID-19, there is a relative lack of specific evidence-based information regarding the level of respiratory protection required. According to the latest Cochrane database analysis, it remains unclear as to which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train healthcare workers to use PPE as instructed [34] . We used the RPE currently recommended by Public Health England [7] and the Health and Safety Executive [24] . All our mobile endotracheal rapid intubation team (MERIT) anaesthesiologists had therefore undergone quantitative fit testing to ensure sufficient protection factors of the individual masks used. The reusable and non-reusable respiratory protective devices tested in our study reflect the actual range of equipment used by anaesthesiologists, nurses and ODPs in our trust during the COVID-19 pandemic. There are some limitations of our study. The study took place in a controlled, nonhazardous environment and the participants were not required to physically exert themselves; therefore stress levels are different from real life scenarios. Furthermore, heat build-up and the effects of standard respirators on breathing resistance over time cannot be commented on. Additionally, the manikins in our study were unable to replicate some of the real-life problems that may occur such as blood, secretions or expired water vapour clouding the indirect laryngoscopic view. In conclusion, our study has demonstrated that wearing different types of RPE does not significantly prolong simulated intubation procedures when performed by a designated, trained and experienced team. Powered respirators seem to be significantly favourable in respect of vision and temperature, whereas full face and half mask air-purifying respirators took preference regarding their lower noise levels, better speech intelligibility and overall mobility. We found that our designated, specially trained mobile endotracheal rapid intubation team (MERIT) anaesthesiologists required half the airway management times to complete standard laryngoscopy, Airtraq and fibreoptic intubation using the more challenging Deluxe J o u r n a l P r e -p r o o f International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC) COVID-19 report: 27 th Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes of 1591 Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 Admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre. ICNARC report on COVID-19 in critical care Controversies in airway management of COVID-19 patients: updated information and international expert consensus recommendations Guidance on infection prevention and control for COVID-19 World Health Organization: Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Infection prevention and control Guiding airway management and personal protective equipment for COVID-19 intubation teams Personal protective equipment during tracheal intubation in patients with COVID-19 in China: a cross-sectional survey Acquired infection after intubating patients with COVID-19: A retrospective pilot study Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study Summary of probable SARS cases with onset of illness from 1 Recommendations for Endotracheal Intubation of COVID-19 Respiratory Protection for Medical First Responders and Receivers Consensus guidelines for managing the airway in patients with COVID-19: Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society, the Association of Anesthesiologists the Intensive Care Society, the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal College of Anaesthetists Airway management strategies for the Covid 19 patients: A brief narrative review A randomised crossover simulation study comparing the impact of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear substance personal protection equipment on the performance of advanced life support interventions Respiratory protection during simulated emergency pediatric life support Comparison of powered and conventional air-purifying respirators during simulated resuscitation of CBRN victims Respiratory protection during high fidelity simulated resuscitation of casualties contaminated with chemical warfare agents -Respiratory protection for anaesthestists during resuscitation Respiratory protective devices -Recommendations for selection, use, care and maintenance -Guidance document Subcommittee PH/4/11 Respiratory protective equipment at work -A practical guide A prospective, observational, cohort study of airway management of patients with COVID-19 by specialist tracheal intubation teams Comparison of six different intubation aids for use while wearing CBRN-PPE: a manikin study Insertion of six different supraglottic airway devices whilst wearing chemical, biological, radiation, nuclear-personal protective equipment: a manikin study The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study Emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVD-19 in Wuhan, China: lessons learnt and international expert recommendations Personal protective equipment (PPE) for anesthesiologists: the need for national guidelines In search of consensus on ethics in airway research Consensus on ethics in airway research -a reply Airway management research: a systematic review Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff The