Human Factors and Airway Management in COVID-19 Patients: The Perfect Storm?

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic heavily impacted healthcare workers, increasing their physical and psychological workload. Specifically, COVID-19 patients’ airway management is definitely a challenging task regarding both severe and acute respiratory failure and the risk of contagion while performing aerosol-generating procedures. The category of anesthesiologists and intensivists, the main actors of airway management, showed a poor psychological well-being and a high stress and burnout risk. Identifying and better defining the specific main SARS-CoV-2-related stressors can help them deal with and effectively plan a strategy to manage these patients in a more confident and safer way. In this review, we therefore try to analyze the relevance of human factors and non-technical skills when approaching COVID-19 patients. Lessons from the past, such as National Audit Project 4 recommendations, have taught us that safe airway management should be based on preoperative assessment, the planning of an adequate strategy, the optimization of setting and resources and the rigorous evaluation of the scenario. Despite, or thanks to, the critical issues and difficulties, the “take home lesson” that we can translate from SARS-CoV-2 to every airway management is that there can be no more room for improvisation and that creating teamwork must become a priority

Follow-up short and long-term mortalities of tracheostomized critically ill patients in an Italian multi-center observational study

Abstract The effects of tracheostomy on outcome as well as on intra or post-operative complications is yet to be defined. Admission of patients with tracheostomy to rehabilitation facility is at higher risk of suboptimal care and increased mortality. The aim of the study was to investigate ICU mortality, clinical outcome and quality of life up to 12 months after ICU discharge in tracheostomized critically ill patients. This is a prospective, multi-center, cohort study endorsed by Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Reanimation, and Intensive Care (SIAARTI Prot. n° 643/13) registered in Clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01899352). Patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) and requiring elective tracheostomy according to physician in charge decision were included in the study. The primary outcome was ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included risk factors for ICU mortality, prevalence of mortality at follow-up, rate of discharge from the hospital and rehabilitation, quality of life, performance status, and management of tracheostomy cannula at 3-, 6, 12-months from the day of tracheostomy. 694 critically ill patients who were tracheostomized in the ICU were included. ICU mortality was 15.8%. Age, SOFA score at the day of the tracheostomy, and days of endotracheal intubation before tracheostomy were risk factors for ICU mortality. The regression tree analysis showed that SOFA score at the day of tracheostomy and age had a preeminent role for the choice to perform the tracheostomy. Of the 694 ICU patients with tracheostomy, 469 completed the 12-months follow-up. Mortality was 33.51% at 3-months, 45.30% at 6-months, and 55.86% at 12-months. Patients with tracheostomy were less likely discharged at home but at hospital facilities or rehabilitative structures; and quality of life of patients with tracheostomy was severely compromised at 3–6 and 12 months when compared with patients without tracheostomy. In patients admitted to ICU, tracheostomy is associated with high mortality, difficult rehabilitation, and decreased quality of life. The choice to perform a tracheostomy should be carefully weighed on family burden and health-related quality of life. Clinical trial registration: Clinicaltrial.gov (NCT01899352)

Tracheostomy outcomes in critically ill patients with COVID-19 : a systematic review, meta-analysis, and meta-regression

Background: We performed a systematic review of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19, which analysed the effect of tracheostomy timing and technique (surgical vs percutaneous) on mortality. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), decannulation from tracheostomy, duration of mechanical ventilation, and complications. Methods: Four databases were screened between January 1, 2020 and January 10, 2022 (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane). Papers were selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the Population or Problem, Intervention or exposure, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) guidelines. Meta-analysis and meta-regression for main outcomes were performed. Results: The search yielded 9024 potentially relevant studies, of which 47 (n=5268 patients) were included. High levels of between-study heterogeneity were observed across study outcomes. The pooled mean tracheostomy timing was 16.5 days (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.7–18.4; I2=99.6%). Pooled mortality was 22.1% (95% CI: 18.7–25.5; I2=89.0%). Meta-regression did not show significant associations between mortality and tracheostomy timing, mechanical ventilation duration, time to decannulation, and tracheostomy technique. Pooled mean estimates for ICU and hospital LOS were 29.6 (95% CI: 24.0–35.2; I2=98.6%) and 38.8 (95% CI: 32.1–45.6; I2=95.7%) days, both associated with mechanical ventilation duration (coefficient 0.8 [95% CI: 0.2–1.4], P=0.02 and 0.9 [95% CI: 0.4–1.4], P=0.01, respectively) but not tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess tracheostomy technique on LOS. Duration of mechanical ventilation was 23.4 days (95% CI: 19.2–27.7; I2=99.3%), not associated with tracheostomy timing. Data were insufficient to assess the effect of tracheostomy technique on mechanical ventilation duration. Time to decannulation was 23.8 days (95% CI: 19.7–27.8; I2=98.7%), not influenced by tracheostomy timing or technique. The most common complications were stoma infection, ulcers or necrosis, and bleeding. Conclusions: In patients with COVID-19 requiring tracheostomy, the timing and technique of tracheostomy did not clearly impact on patient outcomes. Systematic Review Protocol: PROSPERO CRD42021272220.</p

Expert consensus on difficult airway assessment

Background: Identifying a potentially difficult airway is crucial both in anaesthesia in the operating room (OR) and non-operation room sites. There are no guidelines or expert consensus focused on the assessment of the difficult airway before, so this expert consensus is developed to provide guidance for airway assessment, making this process more standardized and accurate to reduce airway-related complications and improve safety.Methods: Seven members from the Airway Management Group of the Chinese Society of Anaesthesiology (CSA) met to discuss the first draft and then this was sent to 15 international experts for review, comment, and approval. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is used to determine the level of evidence and grade the strength of recommendations. The recommendations were revised through a three-round Delphi survey from experts.Results: This expert consensus provides a comprehensive approach to airway assessment based on the medical history, physical examination, comprehensive scores, imaging, and new developments including transnasal endoscopy, virtual laryngoscopy, and 3D printing. In addition, this consensus also reviews some new technologies currently under development such as prediction from facial images and voice information with the aim of proposing new research directions for the assessment of difficult airway.Conclusions: This consensus applies to anesthesiologists, critical care, and emergency physicians refining the preoperative airway assessment and preparing an appropriate intubation strategy for patients with a potentially difficult airway

Association between severity of COVID-19 respiratory disease and risk of obstructive sleep apnea

Objectives: The purpose of this observational retrospective study was to evaluate, in patients with a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection, the association between the severity of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) respiratory illness and the risk of infected patients to develop obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Methods: Ninety-six patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection were enrolled in the study. The STOP-BANG questionnaire to investigate the risk of the OSA syndrome was filled in by the patients at admission. The enrolled patients were divided into 2 groups according to the respiratory disease: group 1 (72 patients), hospitalized patients undergoing conventional oxygen therapy; group 2 (24 patients), patients requiring enhanced respiratory support. STOP-BANG results of these 2 groups were compared to observe whether patients with high OSA risk more frequently presented a severe form of COVID-19. Results: 41.6% of the patients in group 2 had a STOP-BANG score between 5 and 8 (high risk of having apnea); in contrast, 20.8% of the patients in group 1 had a STOP-BANG score between 5 and 8, with a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (P ¼ .05). A complementary trend was observed regarding the proportion of patients in the range 0 to 2, which classifies patients at a low risk of OSA (48.6% vs 20.8% for groups 1 and 2, P ¼ .01). Conclusions: According to our data, the chances of having a severe case of COVID-19 should be considered in patients at high risk of OSA. Current Knowledge/Study Rationale: Emerging research suggests that OSA could represent a potentially important risk factor for the severe forms of COVID-19. The purpose of this observational retrospective study was to evaluate the potential association between OSA and the severity of COVID-19 disease. Study Impact: According to our data, the likelihood of contracting a severe form of COVID-19 disease should be considered in patients at high risk of OSA

Perioperative and periprocedural airway management and respiratory safety for the obese patient: 2016 SIAARTI Consensus

Proper management of obese patients requires a team vision and appropriate behaviors by all health care providers in hospital. Specialist competencies are fundamental, as are specific clinical pathways and good clinical practices designed to deal with patients whose Body Mass Index (BMI) is ≥30 kg/m2. Standards of care for bariatric and non-bariatric surgery and for the critical care management of this population exist but are not well defined nor clearly followed in every hospital. Thus every anesthesiologist is likely to deal with this challenging population. Obesity is a multisystem, chronic, proinflammatory disorder. Unfortunately many countries are facing a marked increase in the obese population, defined as "globesity". Obesity presents an added risk in hospital, leading health care organizations to call for action to avoid adverse events and preventable complications. Periprocedural assessment and critical care strategies designed specifically for obese patients are crucial for reducing morbidity and mortality during surgery and in emergency settings, critical care and other particular settings (e.g., obstetrics). Specific care is needed for airway management, as are proactive strategies to reduce the risk of cardiovascular, endocrine, metabolic and infective complications; any effort can be fruitful, including special attention to the science of human factors. The Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) organized a consensus project involving other national scientific societies to increase risk awareness, define the best multidisciplinary approach for treating obese patients in election and emergency, and enable every hospital to provide appropriate levels of care and good clinical practices. The Obesity Project Task Force, a section of the SIAARTI Airway Management Study Group, used a formal consensus process to identify a series of notes, alerts and statements, to be adopted as bundles, to define appropriate clinical pathways for hospitalized obese patients. The consensus, approved by the Task Force and endorsed by several European scientific societies actively operating in this field, is presented herein

Perioperative and periprocedural airway management and respiratory safety for the obese patient: 2016 SIAARTI Consensus

: Proper management of obese patients requires a team vision and appropriate behaviors by all health care providers in hospital. Specialist competencies are fundamental, as are specific clinical pathways and good clinical practices designed to deal with patients whose Body Mass Index (BMI) is ≥30 kg/m2. Standards of care for bariatric and non-bariatric surgery and for the critical care management of this population exist but are not well defined nor clearly followed in every hospital. Thus every anesthesiologist is likely to deal with this challenging population. Obesity is a multisystem, chronic, proinflammatory disorder. Unfortunately many countries are facing a marked increase in the obese population, defined as "globesity". Obesity presents an added risk in hospital, leading health care organizations to call for action to avoid adverse events and preventable complications. Periprocedural assessment and critical care strategies designed specifically for obese patients are crucial for reducing morbidity and mortality during surgery and in emergency settings, critical care and other particular settings (e.g., obstetrics). Specific care is needed for airway management, as are proactive strategies to reduce the risk of cardiovascular, endocrine, metabolic and infective complications; any effort can be fruitful, including special attention to the science of human factors. The Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) organized a consensus project involving other national scientific societies to increase risk awareness, define the best multidisciplinary approach for treating obese patients in election and emergency, and enable every hospital to provide appropriate levels of care and good clinical practices. The Obesity Project Task Force, a section of the SIAARTI Airway Management Study Group, used a formal consensus process to identify a series of notes, alerts and statements, to be adopted as bundles, to define appropriate clinical pathways for hospitalized obese patients. The consensus, approved by the Task Force and endorsed by several European scientific societies actively operating in this field, is presented herein