Comparison of intubation devices in level C personal protective equipment: A cadaveric study

Abstract

Background: With the advancement of chemical, biological and nuclear warfare and the reemergence of infectious diseases, the possibility of intubating in personal protective equipment has become increasingly more real to the emergency physician. Human cadaveric models have been found to simulate real world conditions better than mannequins. The aim of the study was to determine the first pass success rate and average time to successful intubation while wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Secondarily, subjects were asked to rank their choice of a primary and back up device, as well as the most common encountered barriers using PPE.

Methods: Emergency medicine residents and pre-hospital providers were enrolled in a double randomized sequence to either intubation with direct laryngoscopy (DL), video laryngoscopy (VL), or the Supraglottic Airway Laryngopharyngeal Tube (SALT) in a cadaveric model while wearing level C PPE or without PPE.

Results: First pass success rate was 96% without PPE and 58% while wearing PPE when all devices were considered (p≤0.001). Time to intubation while wearing PPE was 35.0s while no PPE was 22.2s (p=0.012). While wearing PPE both DL and VL were found to allow for a faster intubation as compared to the SALT (23.0s and 18.8s; p=0.002 and p=0.006 respectively). No statistical difference was noted in intubations without PPE. Participants indicated the most common barrier to successful intubation included visibility while wearing hoods (73.7%). Furthermore, 52.6% of participants indicated they would choose DL as the primary method to intubate with if wearing PPE while 47.4% would choose VL.

Conclusion: There is a statistically significant difference in first pass success and time to successful intubation while wearing and not wearing PPE in human cadaveric models.

Keywords: Disaster medicine; Intubation; Personal protective equipment.