Comparing the Ease of Endotracheal Intubation with and without an Intubation Box in COVID-19 Patients

Nazli Karami, Alireza Mahoori, Tohid Karami, Alireza Shakeri, D. Abtahi
{"title":"Comparing the Ease of Endotracheal Intubation with and without an Intubation Box in COVID-19 Patients","authors":"Nazli Karami, Alireza Mahoori, Tohid Karami, Alireza Shakeri, D. Abtahi","doi":"10.18502/aacc.v10i3.15688","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Endotracheal intubation is a potentially high-risk aerosol-generating procedure. So, an intubation box (I-Box) is designed for personal protection during intubation. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of endotracheal intubation with and without an I-box in COVID-19 patients. \nMethods: In this study, 60 COVID-19 patients (30 patients in each group) with and without I-box groups were included. outcomes of intubation including duration of intubation, first-pass success intubation, suitable visibility of airways, restriction of movement in the neck, the need to surface maneuvering of the airway, and the number of attempts for successful intubation were compared between the two groups. \nResults: The time of intubation was significantly longer in the I-box group (15.27±2.6 seconds) than without the I-box group (8.37±1.3 seconds) (p<0.001). All patients (100%) were intubated in the first attempt in the without I-box group while the rate of first-pass success intubation was 50% in the I-box group (p <0.001). The visibility of the airway was significantly better in the without I-box group than the I-box group (without I-box: 23 patients (76.7%), I-box: 15 patients (50%), p= 0.032). The frequency of need to optimizing maneuver of the airway was in without and with I-box was 23.3% and 50% respectively (p=0.032). \nConclusion: However, the I-box as a physical barrier can protect healthcare workers but its use increased the time to intubation and the number of attempts for successful intubation and reduced the rate of first-pass success intubation and visibility.","PeriodicalId":502847,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Anesthesia and Critical Care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Anesthesia and Critical Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/aacc.v10i3.15688","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Endotracheal intubation is a potentially high-risk aerosol-generating procedure. So, an intubation box (I-Box) is designed for personal protection during intubation. This study aimed to compare the outcomes of endotracheal intubation with and without an I-box in COVID-19 patients. Methods: In this study, 60 COVID-19 patients (30 patients in each group) with and without I-box groups were included. outcomes of intubation including duration of intubation, first-pass success intubation, suitable visibility of airways, restriction of movement in the neck, the need to surface maneuvering of the airway, and the number of attempts for successful intubation were compared between the two groups. Results: The time of intubation was significantly longer in the I-box group (15.27±2.6 seconds) than without the I-box group (8.37±1.3 seconds) (p<0.001). All patients (100%) were intubated in the first attempt in the without I-box group while the rate of first-pass success intubation was 50% in the I-box group (p <0.001). The visibility of the airway was significantly better in the without I-box group than the I-box group (without I-box: 23 patients (76.7%), I-box: 15 patients (50%), p= 0.032). The frequency of need to optimizing maneuver of the airway was in without and with I-box was 23.3% and 50% respectively (p=0.032). Conclusion: However, the I-box as a physical barrier can protect healthcare workers but its use increased the time to intubation and the number of attempts for successful intubation and reduced the rate of first-pass success intubation and visibility.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较 COVID-19 患者使用和不使用插管盒进行气管插管的难易程度
背景:气管插管是一种潜在的高风险气溶胶产生过程。因此,插管盒(I-Box)是为插管过程中的个人保护而设计的。本研究旨在比较 COVID-19 患者使用和不使用插管盒进行气管插管的结果。方法:比较两组患者的插管结果,包括插管持续时间、首次插管成功率、气道可见度、颈部活动受限、气道表面操作的必要性以及成功插管的尝试次数。结果显示使用 I-box 组的插管时间(15.27±2.6 秒)明显长于未使用 I-box 组(8.37±1.3 秒)(P<0.001)。无 I 型盒组所有患者(100%)均在首次尝试时完成插管,而 I 型盒组的首次插管成功率为 50%(P<0.001)。无 I-box 组的气道可视性明显优于 I-box 组(无 I-box 组:23 名患者(76.7%),I-box 组:10%):无 I 型盒组:23 名患者(76.7%),I 型盒组:15 名患者(50%),p=0.001:15名患者(50%),P= 0.032)。无 I-box 组和有 I-box 组需要优化气道操作的频率分别为 23.3% 和 50%(P=0.032)。结论然而,I-box 作为一种物理屏障可以保护医护人员,但它的使用增加了插管时间和成功插管的尝试次数,降低了首次插管成功率和可见度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Regional Anaesthesia with Non Invasive Ventilation and Conscious Sedation: An Alternative to General Anaesthesia in Morbidly Obese Patients with Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Retrograde Intrarenal Surgery Short-Time Anesthesia Management for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Comparing the Ease of Endotracheal Intubation with and without an Intubation Box in COVID-19 Patients The Effect of Deferoxamine and Vitamin C Supplementation on Ferritin and CRP Levels in COVID-19 Patients Large Pulmonary Bullae, Resulting from Tuberculosis, in the Context of Extensive Pneumothorax Caused by a Penetrating Chest Wound
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1