Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38297196›Full record

Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2024

Difficult airway simulation-based training for anaesthesiologists: efficacy and skills retention within six months.

Kateryna Bielka, Iurii Kuchyn, Hanna Fomina, Olena Khomenko, Iryna Kyselova, Michael Frank

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05913492 (Difficult Airway Simulation-based Training in Anaesthesiologists), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05913492 completednot on this map

Difficult Airway Simulation-based Training in Anaesthesiologists: Efficacy and Skills Retention Within Six Months After Training

TypeobservationalSponsorBogomolets National Medical UniversityRan2022 to 2023Enrolled67ConditionsIntubation, Difficult or Failed, Educational Problems, Critical IllnessArmsSimulation training
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kateryna BielkaPostgraduate department of Surgery, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine. ekateryna.belka@gmail.com.
Iurii KuchynPostgraduate department of Surgery, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine.
Hanna FominaPostgraduate department of Surgery, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine.
Olena KhomenkoPostgraduate department of Surgery, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine.
Iryna KyselovaPostgraduate department of Surgery, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine.
Michael FrankPostgraduate department of Surgery, Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, 01601, Ukraine.
Bogomolets National Medical University · UA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate how anaesthesiologists manage a "cannot intubate, can ventilate" (CI) and "cannot intubate, cannot ventilate" (CICV) scenarios, and how following simulation training will affect their guideline adherence, skills and decision-making immediately after training and 6 months later.

methodsA prospective controlled study was conducted from July to December 2022. Anaesthesiologists who applied for the continuous medical education course "Difficult Airway Management" were involved in the study. Each volunteer participated in two simulation scenarios (CI, CICV) with structural debriefing after each scenario. After the first simulation round, volunteers were trained in difficult airway management according to DAS guidelines, using the same equipment as during the simulation. The participants repeated the simulation scenarios the day after the training and six months later. The primary and secondary endpoints were compared between three rounds: initial simulation (Group 1), immediately after training (Group 2), and six months after training (Group 3).

resultsA total of 24 anaesthesiologists consented to participate in the study and completed the initial survey form. During the first session, 83.3% of participants had at least one major deviation from the DAS protocol. During the first CICV scenario, 79% of participants made at least one deviation from the DAS protocol. The second time after simulation training, significantly better results were achieved: the number of anaesthesiologists, who attempted more than 3 laryngoscopies decreased (OR = 7 [1.8-26.8], p = 0.006 right after training and OR = 3.9 [1.06-14.4], p = 0.035 6 month later); the number, who skipped the supralaryngeal device attempt, call for help and failure to initiate surgical airway also decreased. Simulation training also significantly decreases the time to call for help, cricothyroidotomy initiation time, and mean desaturation time and increases the odds ratio of successful cricothyroidotomy (OR 0.02 [0.003-0.14], p < 0.0001 right after training and OR = OR 0.02 [0.003-0.16] 6 months after training).

conclusionsAnaesthesiologists usually display major deviations from DAS guidelines while managing CI and CICV scenarios. Simulation training improves their guideline adherence, skills, and decision-making when repeating the simulation immediately after training and 6 months later. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT05913492, clinicaltrials.gov, 22/06/2023.

Indexed as

AnesthesiologySimulation TrainingAirway ManagementClinical CompetenceHumansIntubation, IntratrachealProspective StudiesDifficult airwaysIntubationSimulation

Identifiers

PMID38297196
PMCPMC10829367
OpenAlexW4391389614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.