ArticleTrends in anaesthesia & critical care2021
Influence of respiratory protective equipment on simulated advanced airway skills by specialist tracheal intubation teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Trends in anaesthesia & critical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Three Video Laryngoscopes and Direct Laryngoscopy for Emergency Endotracheal Intubation While Wearing PPE-AGP: A Randomized, Crossover, Simulation Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Impact of COVID-19 specific simulation training in improving intubators' level of comfort during intubations of COVID-19 patients - Results from a USA national survey.Trends in anaesthesia & critical care · 2022Article
- On strife, natural selection and success in airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic: Shifting fromTrends in anaesthesia & critical care · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of respiratory protective equipment for clinicians performing airway management. Aim: To evaluate the impact of powered air-purifying respirators, full-face air-purifying respirators and filtering facepieces on specially trained anaesthesiologists performing difficult airway procedures. Methods: All our COVID-19 intubation team members carried out various difficult intubation drills: unprotected, wearing a full-face respirator, a filtering facepiece or a powered respirator. Airway management times and wearer comfort were evaluated and analysed. Results: Total mean (SD) intubation times did not show significant differences between the control, the powered, the full-face respirator and the filtering facepiece groups: Airtraq 6.1 (4.4) vs. 5.4 (3.1) vs. 6.1 (5.6) vs. 7.7 (7.6) s; videolaryngoscopy 11.4 (9.0) vs. 7.7 (4.3) vs. 9.8 (8.4) vs. 12.7 (9.8) s; fibreoptic intubation 16.6 (7.8) vs.13.8 (6.7) vs. 13.6 (8.1) vs. 16.9 (9.2) s; and standard endotracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy 8.1 (3.5) vs. 6.5 (5.6) vs. 6.2 (4.2) vs. 8.0 (4.4) s, respectively. Use of the Airtraq achieved the shortest intubation times. Anaesthesiologists rated temperature and vision significantly better in the powered respirator group. Conclusions: Advanced airway management remains unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used if performed by a specially trained, designated team. We conclude that when advanced airway skills are performed by a designated, specially trained team, airway management times remain unaffected by the respiratory protective equipment used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.