Introduction Barrier enclosures have been developed to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare providers during intubation, but little is known about their impact on procedure performance. We sought to determine whether a barrier enclosure delays time to successful intubation by experienced airway operators. Methods We conducted a crossover simulation study at a tertiary academic hospital. Participants watched a four-minute video, practiced one simulated intubation with a barrier enclosure, and then completed one intubation with and one without the barrier enclosure (randomized to determine order). The primary outcome measure was time from placement of the video laryngoscope at the lips to first delivered ventilation. Secondary outcomes were periprocedural complications and participant responses to a post-study survey. Results Proceduralists (n = 50) from emergency medicine and anesthesiology had median intubation times of 23.6 seconds with practice barrier enclosure, 20.5 seconds with barrier enclosure, and 16.7 seconds with no barrier. Intubation with barrier enclosure averaged 4.5 seconds longer (95% confidence interval, 2.7–6.4, p < .001) than without, but was less than the predetermined clinical significance threshold of 10 seconds. Three complications occurred, all during the practice intubation. Barrier enclosure made intubation more challenging according to 48%, but 90% indicated they would consider using it in clinical practice. Conclusion Experienced airway operators performed intubation using a barrier enclosure with minimal increased time to procedure completion in this uncomplicated airway model. Given potential to reduce droplet spread, use of a barrier enclosure may be an acceptable adjunct to endotracheal intubation for those familiar with its use.
BACKGROUND: Diastolic dysfunction is a risk factor for postoperative major cardiovascular events. During anesthesia, patients with diastolic dysfunction might experience impaired hemodynamic function and worsening of diastolic function, which in turn, might be associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications. We aimed to investigate whether patients with diastolic dysfunction require higher doses of norepinephrine during general anesthesia. Furthermore, we aimed to examine the association between the grade of diastolic dysfunction and the E/e’ ratio during anesthesia. A high E/e’ ratio corresponds to elevated filling pressures and is an important measure of impaired diastolic function. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational cohort study at a German university hospital from February 2017 to September 2018. Patients aged ≥60 years and undergoing general anesthesia (ie, propofol and sevoflurane) for elective noncardiac surgery were enrolled. Exclusion: mitral valve disease, atrial fibrillation, and implanted mechanical device. The primary outcome parameter was the administered dose of norepinephrine within 30 minutes after anesthesia induction (μg·kg−1 30 min−1). The secondary outcome parameter was the change of Doppler echocardiographic E/e’ from ECHO1 (baseline) to ECHO2 (anesthesia). Linear models and linear mixed models were used for statistical evaluation. RESULTS: A total of 247 patients were enrolled, and 200 patients (75 female) were included in the final analysis. Diastolic dysfunction at baseline was not associated with a higher dose of norepinephrine during anesthesia (P = .6953). The grade of diastolic dysfunction at baseline was associated with a decrease of the E/e’ ratio during anesthesia (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We did not find evidence for an association between diastolic dysfunction and impaired hemodynamic function, as expressed by high vasopressor support during anesthesia. Additionally, our findings suggest that diastolic function, as expressed by the E/e’ ratio, does not worsen during anesthesia.
Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) have adopted procedural skill simulation, with researchers increasingly investigating simulation efforts in resource-strained settings. We aim to summarize the current state of procedural skill simulation research in LMICs focusing on methodology, clinical area, types of outcomes and cost, cost-effectiveness, and overall sustainability. We performed a comprehensive literature review of original articles that assessed procedural skill simulation from database inception until April 2022. From 5371 screened articles, 262 were included in this review. All included studies were in English. Most studies were observational cohort studies (72.9%) and focused on obstetrics and neonatal medicine (32.4%). Most measured outcome was the process of task performance (56.5%). Several studies mentioned cost (38.9%) or sustainability (29.8%). However, few articles included actual monetary cost information (11.1%); only 1 article assessed cost-effectiveness. Based on our review, future research of procedural skill simulation in LMICS should focus on more rigorous research, cost assessments, and on less studied areas.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.