These guidelines provide a strategy to manage unanticipated difficulty with tracheal intubation. They are founded on published evidence. Where evidence is lacking, they have been directed by feedback from members of the Difficult Airway Society and based on expert opinion. These guidelines have been informed by advances in the understanding of crisis management; they emphasize the recognition and declaration of difficulty during airway management. A simplified, single algorithm now covers unanticipated difficulties in both routine intubation and rapid sequence induction. Planning for failed intubation should form part of the pre-induction briefing, particularly for urgent surgery. Emphasis is placed on assessment, preparation, positioning, preoxygenation, maintenance of oxygenation, and minimizing trauma from airway interventions. It is recommended that the number of airway interventions are limited, and blind techniques using a bougie or through supraglottic airway devices have been superseded by video- or fibre-optically guided intubation. If tracheal intubation fails, supraglottic airway devices are recommended to provide a route for oxygenation while reviewing how to proceed. Second-generation devices have advantages and are recommended. When both tracheal intubation and supraglottic airway device insertion have failed, waking the patient is the default option. If at this stage, face-mask oxygenation is impossible in the presence of muscle relaxation, cricothyroidotomy should follow immediately. Scalpel cricothyroidotomy is recommended as the preferred rescue technique and should be practised by all anaesthetists. The plans outlined are designed to be simple and easy to follow. They should be regularly rehearsed and made familiar to the whole theatre team.

Summary Awake tracheal intubation has a high success rate and a favourable safety profile but is underused in cases of anticipated difficult airway management. These guidelines are a comprehensive document to support decision making, preparation and practical performance of awake tracheal intubation. We performed a systematic review of the literature seeking all of the available evidence for each element of awake tracheal intubation in order to make recommendations. In the absence of high‐quality evidence, expert consensus and a Delphi study were used to formulate recommendations. We highlight key areas of awake tracheal intubation in which specific recommendations were made, which included: indications; procedural setup; checklists; oxygenation; airway topicalisation; sedation; verification of tracheal tube position; complications; management of unsuccessful awake tracheal intubation; post‐tracheal intubation management; consent; and training. We recognise that there are a range of techniques and regimens that may be effective and one such example technique is included. Breaking down the key practical elements of awake tracheal intubation into sedation, topicalisation, oxygenation and performance might help practitioners to plan, perform and address complications. These guidelines aim to support clinical practice and help lower the threshold for performing awake tracheal intubation when indicated.

Healthcare workers involved in aerosol-generating procedures, such as tracheal intubation, may be at elevated risk of acquiring COVID-19. However, the magnitude of this risk is unknown. We conducted a prospective international multicentre cohort study recruiting healthcare workers participating in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Information on tracheal intubation episodes, personal protective equipment use and subsequent provider health status was collected via self-reporting. The primary endpoint was the incidence of laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis or new symptoms requiring selfisolation or hospitalisation after a tracheal intubation episode. Cox regression analysis examined associations between the primary endpoint and healthcare worker characteristics, procedure-related factors and personal protective equipment use. Between 23 March and 2 June 2020, 1718 healthcare workers from 503 hospitals in 17 countries reported 5148 tracheal intubation episodes. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.7% over a median (IQR [range]) follow-up of 32 (18-48 [0-116]) days. The cumulative incidence within 7, 14

Summary The cost effectiveness of reusable vs. single‐use flexible bronchoscopy in the peri‐operative setting has yet to be determined. We therefore aimed to determine this and hypothesised that single‐use flexible bronchoscopes are cost effective compared with reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We conducted a systematic review of the literature, seeking all reports of cross‐contamination or infection following reusable bronchoscope use in any clinical setting. We calculated the incidence of these outcomes and then determined the cost per patient of treating clinical consequences of bronchoscope‐induced infection. We also performed a micro‐costing analysis to quantify the economics of reusable flexible bronchoscopes in the peri‐operative setting from a high‐throughput tertiary centre. This produced an accurate estimate of the cost per use of reusable flexible bronchoscopes. We then performed a cost effectiveness analysis, combining the data obtained from the systematic review and micro‐costing analysis. We included 16 studies, with a reported incidence of cross‐contamination or infection of 2.8%. In the micro‐costing analysis, the total cost per use of a reusable flexible bronchoscope was calculated to be £249 sterling. The cost per use of a single‐use flexible bronchoscope was £220 sterling. The cost effectiveness analysis demonstrated that reusable flexible bronchoscopes have a cost per patient use of £511 sterling due to the costs of treatment of infection. The findings from this study suggest benefits from the use of single‐use flexible bronchoscopes in terms of cost effectiveness, cross‐contamination and resource utilisation.

Contemporary data are lacking for procedural practice, training provision and outcomes for awake fibreoptic intubation in the UK. We performed a prospective cohort study of awake fibreoptic intubations at a tertiary centre to assess current practice. Data from 600 elective or emergency awake fibreoptic intubations were collected to include information on patient and operator demographics, technical performance and complications. This comprised 1.71% of patients presenting for surgery requiring a general anaesthetic, with the majority occurring in patients presenting for head and neck surgery. The most common indication was reduced mouth opening (26.8%), followed by previous airway surgery or head and neck radiotherapy (22.5% each). Only five awake fibreoptic intubations were performed with no sedation, but the most common sedative technique was combined target-controlled infusions of remifentanil and propofol. Oxygenation was achieved with high-flow, heated and humidified oxygen via nasal cannula in 49.0% of patients. Most operators had performed awake fibreoptic intubation more than 20 times previously, but trainees were the primary operator in 78.6% of awake fibreoptic intubations, of which 86.8% were directly supervised by a consultant. The failure rate was 1.0%, and 11.0% of awake fibreoptic intubations were complicated, most commonly by multiple attempts (4.2%), over-sedation (2.2%) or desaturation (1.5%). The only significant association with complications was the number of previous awake fibreoptic intubations performed, with fewer complications occurring in the hands of operators with more awake fibreoptic intubation experience. Our data demonstrate that awake fibreoptic intubation is a safe procedure with a high success rate. Institutional awake fibreoptic intubation training can both develop and maintain trainee competence in performing awake fibreoptic intubation, with a similar incidence of complications and success compared with consultants.

The high-flow nasal oxygen-delivery system improves oxygenation saturation, decreases the risk of desaturation during the procedure, and potentially, optimizes conditions for awake fibre-optic intubation. The soft nasal cannulae uniquely allow continuous oxygenation and simultaneous passage of the fibrescope and tracheal tube. The safety of the procedure may be increased, because any obstruction, hypoventilation, or periods of apnoea that may arise may be tolerated for longer, allowing more time to achieve ventilation in an optimally oxygenated patient.

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 TM ; 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.

Purpose COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation can overwhelm existing bed capacity. We aimed to better understand the factors that influence the trajectory of tracheostomy care in this population to facilitate capacity planning and improve outcomes. Methods We conducted an observational cohort study of patients in a high-volume centre in the worst-affected region of the UK including all patients that underwent tracheostomy for COVID-19 pneumonitis ventilatory wean from 1st March 2020 to 10th May 2020. The primary outcome was time from insertion to decannulation. The analysis utilised Cox regression to account for patients that are still progressing through their tracheostomy pathway. Results At the point of analysis, a median 21 days (IQR 15-28) post-tracheostomy and 39 days (IQR 32-45) post-intubation, 35/69 (57.4%) patients had been decannulated a median of 17 days (IQR 12-20.5) post-insertion. The overall median age was 55 (IQR 48-61) with a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. In Cox regression analysis, FiO 2 at tracheostomy ≥ 0.4 (HR 1.80; 95% CI 0.89-3.60; p = 0.048) and last pre-tracheostomy peak cough flow (HR 2.27; 95% CI 1.78-4.45; p = 0.001) were independent variables associated with prolonged time to decannulation. Conclusion Higher FiO 2 at tracheostomy and higher pre-tracheostomy peak cough flow are associated with increased delay in COVID-19 tracheostomy patient decannulation. These finding comprise the most comprehensive report of COVID-19 tracheostomy decannulation to date and will assist service planning for future peaks of this pandemic.