Transfer of skills and comparison of performance between king vision® video laryngoscope and macintosh blade following an AHA airway management course

BACKGROUND: To potentially optimize intubation skill teaching in an American Heart Association® Airway Management Course® for novices, we investigated the transfer of skills from video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy and vice versa using King Vision® and Macintosh blade laryngoscopes respectively. METHODS: Ninety volunteers (medical students, residents and staff physicians) without prior intubation experience were randomized into three groups to receive intubation training with either King Vision® or Macintosh blade or both. Afterwards they attempted intubation on two human cadavers with both tools. The primary outcome was skill transfer from video laryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy assessed by first attempt success rates within 60 s. Secondary outcomes were skill transfer in the opposite direction, the efficacy of teaching both tools, and the success rates and esophageal intubation rates of Macintosh blade versus King Vision®. RESULTS: Performance with the Macintosh blade was identical following training with either Macintosh blade or King Vision® (unadjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.09, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.5–2.6). Performance with the King Vision® was significantly better in the group that was trained on it (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.2–5.9). Success rate within 60 s with Macintosh blade was 48% compared to 52% with King Vision® (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.4–2.0). Rate of esophageal intubations with Macintosh blade was significantly higher (17% versus 4%, OR 5.0, 95% CI 1.1–23). CONCLUSIONS: We found better skill transfer from King Vision® to Macintosh blade than vice versa and fewer esophageal intubations with video laryngoscopy. For global skill improvement in an airway management course for novices, teaching only video laryngoscopy may be sufficient. However, success rates were low for both devices. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-016-0296-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Simulation-based training improves physicians' performance in patient care in high-stakes clinical setting of cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based training is useful in improving physicians' skills. However, no randomized controlled trials have been able to demonstrate the effects of simulation teaching in real-life patient care. This study aimed to determine whether simulation-based training or an interactive seminar resulted in better patient care during weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)-a high stakes clinical setting. METHODS: This study was conducted as a prospective, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. After institutional research board approval, 20 anesthesiology trainees, postgraduate year 4 or higher, inexperienced in CPB weaning, and 60 patients scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass grafting were recruited. Each trainee received a teaching syllabus for CPB weaning 1 week before attempting to wean a patient from CPB (pretest). One week later, each trainee received a 2-h training session with either high-fidelity simulation-based training or a 2-h interactive seminar. Each trainee then weaned patients from CPB within 2 weeks (posttest) and 5 weeks (retention test) from the intervention. Clinical performance was measured using the validated Anesthesiologists' Nontechnical Skills Global Rating Scale and a checklist of expected clinical actions. RESULTS: Pretest Global Rating Scale and checklist performances were similar. The simulation group scored significantly higher than the seminar group at both posttest (Global Rating Scale [mean +/- standard error]: 14.3 +/- 0.41 vs. 11.8 +/- 0.41, P < 0.001; checklist: 89.9 +/- 3.0% vs. 75.4 +/- 3.0%, P = 0.003) and retention test (Global Rating Scale: 14.1 +/- 0.41 vs. 11.7 +/- 0.41, P < 0.001; checklist: 93.2 +/- 2.4% vs. 77.0 +/- 2.4%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Skills required to wean a patient from CPB can be acquired through simulation-based training. Compared with traditional interactive seminars, simulation-based training leads to improved performance in patient care by senior trainees in anesthesiology

Prospective validation of classification of intraoperative adverse events (ClassIntra): international, multicentre cohort study.

To prospectively assess the construct and criterion validity of ClassIntra version 1.0, a newly developed classification for assessing intraoperative adverse events. International, multicentre cohort study. 18 secondary and tertiary centres from 12 countries in Europe, Oceania, and North America. The cohort study included a representative sample of 2520 patients in hospital having any type of surgery, followed up until discharge. A follow-up to assess mortality at 30 days was performed in 2372 patients (94%). A survey was sent to a representative sample of 163 surgeons and anaesthetists from participating centres. Intraoperative complications were assessed according to ClassIntra. Postoperative complications were assessed daily until discharge from hospital with the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary endpoint was construct validity by investigating the risk adjusted association between the most severe intraoperative and postoperative complications, measured in a multivariable hierarchical proportional odds model. For criterion validity, inter-rater reliability was evaluated in a survey of 10 fictitious case scenarios describing intraoperative complications. Of 2520 patients enrolled, 610 (24%) experienced at least one intraoperative adverse event and 838 (33%) at least one postoperative complication. Multivariable analysis showed a gradual increase in risk for a more severe postoperative complication with increasing grade of ClassIntra: ClassIntra grade I versus grade 0, odds ratio 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.42); grade II versus grade 0, 1.39 (0.97 to 2.00); grade III versus grade 0, 2.62 (1.31 to 5.26); and grade IV versus grade 0, 3.81 (1.19 to 12.2). ClassIntra showed high criterion validity with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.91) in the survey (response rate 83%). ClassIntra is the first prospectively validated classification for assessing intraoperative adverse events in a standardised way, linking them to postoperative complications with the well established Clavien-Dindo classification. ClassIntra can be incorporated into routine practice in perioperative surgical safety checklists, or used as a monitoring and outcome reporting tool for different surgical disciplines. Future studies should investigate whether the tool is useful to stratify patients to the appropriate postoperative care, to enhance the quality of surgical interventions, and to improve long term outcomes of surgical patients. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03009929

Prospective validation of classification of intraoperative adverse events (ClassIntra) : international, multicentre cohort study

Altres ajuts: The research was supported by grants from the Goldschmidt-Jacobson Foundation, University of Basel, Foundation for Research and Education in Anaesthesiology, Switzerland, and VSB fonds (Verenigde Spaar Bankenfonds), Netherlands.To prospectively assess the construct and criterion validity of ClassIntra version 1.0, a newly developed classification for assessing intraoperative adverse events. International, multicentre cohort study. 18 secondary and tertiary centres from 12 countries in Europe, Oceania, and North America. The cohort study included a representative sample of 2520 patients in hospital having any type of surgery, followed up until discharge. A follow-up to assess mortality at 30 days was performed in 2372 patients (94%). A survey was sent to a representative sample of 163 surgeons and anaesthetists from participating centres. Intraoperative complications were assessed according to ClassIntra. Postoperative complications were assessed daily until discharge from hospital with the Clavien-Dindo classification. The primary endpoint was construct validity by investigating the risk adjusted association between the most severe intraoperative and postoperative complications, measured in a multivariable hierarchical proportional odds model. For criterion validity, inter-rater reliability was evaluated in a survey of 10 fictitious case scenarios describing intraoperative complications. Of 2520 patients enrolled, 610 (24%) experienced at least one intraoperative adverse event and 838 (33%) at least one postoperative complication. Multivariable analysis showed a gradual increase in risk for a more severe postoperative complication with increasing grade of ClassIntra: ClassIntra grade I versus grade 0, odds ratio 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.69 to 1.42); grade II versus grade 0, 1.39 (0.97 to 2.00); grade III versus grade 0, 2.62 (1.31 to 5.26); and grade IV versus grade 0, 3.81 (1.19 to 12.2). ClassIntra showed high criterion validity with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.91) in the survey (response rate 83%). ClassIntra is the first prospectively validated classification for assessing intraoperative adverse events in a standardised way, linking them to postoperative complications with the well established Clavien-Dindo classification. ClassIntra can be incorporated into routine practice in perioperative surgical safety checklists, or used as a monitoring and outcome reporting tool for different surgical disciplines. Future studies should investigate whether the tool is useful to stratify patients to the appropriate postoperative care, to enhance the quality of surgical interventions, and to improve long term outcomes of surgical patients. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03009929