Anaesthesia
-
Review
An evidence-based approach to airway management: is there a role for clinical practice guidelines?
Complications arising out of airway management represent an important cause of anaesthesia-associated morbidity and mortality. Anaesthetic practice itself can lead to preventable harm, a particular example being persistent attempts at direct laryngoscopy, that results in delay in employing alternative strategies (or devices) when intubation is difficult. When patients are injured, expert review is called upon and often concludes that airway management provided by the anaesthetists was substandard. ⋯ New technologies and practised response algorithms may be helpful in the management of the difficult airway, reducing the potential for adverse patient outcomes. Specialist societies and national interest groups can play an important role by critically reviewing and then applying the evidence base to generate clinical practice guidelines. The recommendations contained in such guidelines should be based on the most current evidence and they should be reviewed regularly for their content and continued relevance.
-
There is no consensus as to the ideal approach for the anaesthetic management of the adult obstructed airway and there are advocates of awake fibreoptic intubation, inhalational induction and intravenous induction techniques. This review considers the different options available for obstruction at different anatomical levels. Decisions must also be made on the urgency of the required intervention. Particular controversies revolve around the role of inhalational vs intravenous induction of anaesthesia, the use or avoidance of neuromuscular blockade and the employment of cannula cricothyroidotomy vs surgical tracheostomy.
-
A myriad of new intubation equipment has been introduced commercially since the appearance of Macintosh/Miller blades in the 1940s. We review the role of devices that are relevant to current clinical practice based on their presence in the scientific literature. The comparative performance of new vs traditional direct laryngoscopes, their complications, their use in awake intubation techniques and the prediction of unsuccessful intubation with new devices are reviewed. ⋯ We conclude that in both predicted and unpredicted difficult or failed intubation, carefully selected new intubation equipment has a high success rate for tracheal intubation. Ideally, such devices should be available in all settings where tracheal intubation is performed. Most importantly, experience and competence with any of the new devices are critical for their successful use in any clinical setting.
-
Airway management in the intensive care unit is more problematic than during anaesthesia. In general, critically ill patients have less physiological reserve and complications are more common, both during the initial airway intervention (which includes risks associated with induction of anaesthesia), and later once the airway has been secured. Despite these known risks, those managing the airway of a critically ill patient, particularly out of hours, may be relatively inexperienced. Solutions to these challenging airway problems include: recognition of those patients with a potential airway problem; implementation of a plan to deal with their airway; immediate availability of a difficult airway trolley; use of capnography for every airway intervention and continuously in all ventilator-dependent patients; and appropriate training of all intensive care unit staff including use of simulation.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study
The air-Q(®) intubating laryngeal airway vs the LMA-ProSeal(TM) : a prospective, randomised trial of airway seal pressure.
We performed a prospective, open-label, randomised controlled trial comparing the air-Q(®) against the LMA-ProSeal™ in adults undergoing general anaesthesia. One hundred subjects (American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1-3) presenting for elective, outpatient surgery were randomly assigned to 52 air-Q(®) and 48 ProSeal devices. The primary study endpoint was airway seal pressure. ⋯ Mean (SD) airway seal pressures for the air-Q(®) and ProSeal were 30 (7) cmH (2) O and 30 (6) cmH(2) O, respectively (p = 0.47). Postoperative sore throat was more common with the air-Q(®) (46% vs 38%, p = 0.03) as was pain on swallowing (30% vs 5%, p = 0.01). In conclusion, the air-Q(®) performs well as a primary airway during the maintenance of general anaesthesia with an airway seal pressure similar to that of the ProSeal, but with a higher incidence of postoperative oropharyngolaryngeal complaints.