A prospective randomised simulation trial comparing our novel AIR-BOX to standard airway equipment storage modalities
- PMID: 35515731
- PMCID: PMC8936580
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjstel-2020-000721
A prospective randomised simulation trial comparing our novel AIR-BOX to standard airway equipment storage modalities
Abstract
Background: There is little evidence guiding equipment handling during emergency endotracheal intubations (EEI). Available evidence and current practice are either outdated, anecdotal or focused on difficult-not emergency-intubation. In this study, we describe and evaluate our equipment handling unit: the AIR-BOX.
Methods: This is a proof-of-concept, prospective, randomised simulation trial. A convenience sample of 50 airway course participants voluntarily underwent randomisation: 21 to the AIR-BOX group, 14 to the intubation box group, and 15 to the crash cart group. The volunteers were asked to intubate a manikin using the equipment from the storage unit of their randomisation. Outcome measures included time-to-readiness, time-to-intubation, first-pass success, and subjective operator experience.
Results: The mean time-to-readiness was 67.2 s with the AIR-BOX, 84.6 s with the intubation box, and 115 s with the crash cart. The mean time-to-intubation was 105 s with the AIR-BOX, 127 s with the intubation box and 167 s with the crash cart. A statistically significant difference was achieved between the AIR-BOX and the crash cart. No statistically significant difference was found between the three groups with regard to first-pass success or the time between intubation readiness and intubation.
Conclusions: This study supports the AIR-BOX as a viable tool that can improve and simplify access to emergency intubating equipment. It also opens doors for multiple future innovations that can positively impact equipment handling practices. Future studies can focus on assessing whether applying the AIR-BOX will yield a clinically significant impact on patient outcomes.
Keywords: Airway; Anaesthesia; Cognitive Load; Emergency Medicine; Equipment.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Figures



Similar articles
-
An Innovative Inexpensive Portable Pulmonary Edema Intubation Simulator.J Educ Teach Emerg Med. 2020 Apr 15;5(2):I9-I20. doi: 10.21980/J8MM1R. eCollection 2020 Apr. J Educ Teach Emerg Med. 2020. PMID: 37465400 Free PMC article.
-
COVID-19 aerosol box as protection from droplet and aerosol contaminations in healthcare workers performing airway intubation: a randomised cross-over simulation study.Emerg Med J. 2021 Feb;38(2):111-117. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2020-210514. Epub 2020 Nov 20. Emerg Med J. 2021. PMID: 33219133 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Selective intubation with endotracheal tube introducer in difficult airway: A randomized, prospective, cross-over study.Turk J Emerg Med. 2021 Oct 29;21(4):205-209. doi: 10.4103/2452-2473.329632. eCollection 2021 Oct-Dec. Turk J Emerg Med. 2021. PMID: 34849433 Free PMC article.
-
Airway Management in Disaster Response: A Manikin Study Comparing Direct and Video Laryngoscopy for Endotracheal Intubation by Prehospital Providers in Level C Personal Protective Equipment.Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017 Aug;32(4):352-356. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X17000188. Epub 2017 Mar 20. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2017. PMID: 28318455 Clinical Trial.
-
Preoperative airway assessment - experience gained from a multicentre cluster randomised trial and the Danish Anaesthesia Database.Dan Med J. 2016 May;63(5):B5241. Dan Med J. 2016. PMID: 27127020 Review.
References
-
- Emergency, emergent, urgent. AMA Style Insider . The JAMA Network, 2013. Available https://amastyleinsider.com/2013/01/23/emergency-emergent-urgent/ (accessed 21 Aug 2020)
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources