The Impact of Personal Protection Equipment on Intubation Times
INTRODUCTION: Hazardous material (HAZMAT) protocols require health care providers to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) when caring for contaminated patients. Multiple levels of PPE exist (level D - level A), providing progressively more protection. Emergent endotracheal intubation (ETI) of victims can become complicated by the cumbersome nature of PPE.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: The null hypothesis was tested that there would be no difference in time to successful ETI between providers in different types of PPE.
METHODS: This randomized controlled trial assessed time to ETI with differing levels of PPE. Participants included 18 senior US Emergency Medicine (EM) residents and attendings, and nine US senior Anesthesiology residents. Each individual performed ETI on a mannequin (Laerdal SimMan Essential; Stavanger, Sweden) wearing the following levels of PPE: universal precautions (UP) controls (nitrile gloves and facemask with shield); partial level C (PC; rubber gloves and a passive air-purifying respirator [APR]); and complete level C (CC; passive APR with an anti-chemical suit). Primary outcome measures were the time in seconds (s) to successful intubation: Time 1 (T1) = inflation of the endotracheal tube (ETT) balloon; Time 2 (T2) = first ventilation. Data were reported as medians with Interquartile Ranges (IQR, 25%-75%) or percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%, CI). Group comparisons were analyzed by Fisher's Exact Test or Kruskal-Wallis, as appropriate (alpha = 0.017 [three groups], two-tails). Sample size analysis was based upon the power of 80% to detect a difference of 10 seconds between groups at a P = .017; 27 subjects per group would be needed.
RESULTS: All 27 participants completed the study. At T1, there was no statistically significant difference (P = .27) among UP 18.0s (11.5s-19.0s), PC 21.0s (14.0s-23.5s), or CC 17.0s (13.5s-27.5s). For T2, there was also no significant (P = .25) differences among UP 24.0s (17.5s-27.0s), PC 26.0s (21.0s-32.0s), or CC 24.0s (19.5s-33.5s).
CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in time to balloon inflation or ventilation. Higher levels of PPE do not appear to increase time to ETI.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2021 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:36 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Prehospital and disaster medicine - 36(2021), 4 vom: 14. Aug., Seite 375-379 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Doukas, Donald [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Decontamination |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 25.11.2021 Date Revised 25.11.2021 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1017/S1049023X21000492 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM325883629 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM325883629 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231225193406.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231225s2021 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1017/S1049023X21000492 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1086.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM325883629 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)34039457 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Doukas, Donald |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 4 | |a The Impact of Personal Protection Equipment on Intubation Times |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 25.11.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 25.11.2021 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a INTRODUCTION: Hazardous material (HAZMAT) protocols require health care providers to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) when caring for contaminated patients. Multiple levels of PPE exist (level D - level A), providing progressively more protection. Emergent endotracheal intubation (ETI) of victims can become complicated by the cumbersome nature of PPE | ||
| 520 | |a STUDY OBJECTIVE: The null hypothesis was tested that there would be no difference in time to successful ETI between providers in different types of PPE | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: This randomized controlled trial assessed time to ETI with differing levels of PPE. Participants included 18 senior US Emergency Medicine (EM) residents and attendings, and nine US senior Anesthesiology residents. Each individual performed ETI on a mannequin (Laerdal SimMan Essential; Stavanger, Sweden) wearing the following levels of PPE: universal precautions (UP) controls (nitrile gloves and facemask with shield); partial level C (PC; rubber gloves and a passive air-purifying respirator [APR]); and complete level C (CC; passive APR with an anti-chemical suit). Primary outcome measures were the time in seconds (s) to successful intubation: Time 1 (T1) = inflation of the endotracheal tube (ETT) balloon; Time 2 (T2) = first ventilation. Data were reported as medians with Interquartile Ranges (IQR, 25%-75%) or percentages with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%, CI). Group comparisons were analyzed by Fisher's Exact Test or Kruskal-Wallis, as appropriate (alpha = 0.017 [three groups], two-tails). Sample size analysis was based upon the power of 80% to detect a difference of 10 seconds between groups at a P = .017; 27 subjects per group would be needed | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: All 27 participants completed the study. At T1, there was no statistically significant difference (P = .27) among UP 18.0s (11.5s-19.0s), PC 21.0s (14.0s-23.5s), or CC 17.0s (13.5s-27.5s). For T2, there was also no significant (P = .25) differences among UP 24.0s (17.5s-27.0s), PC 26.0s (21.0s-32.0s), or CC 24.0s (19.5s-33.5s) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: There were no statistically significant differences in time to balloon inflation or ventilation. Higher levels of PPE do not appear to increase time to ETI | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Randomized Controlled Trial | |
| 650 | 4 | |a decontamination | |
| 650 | 4 | |a emergency medicine | |
| 650 | 4 | |a hazardous materials (HAZMAT) | |
| 650 | 4 | |a intubation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a personal protective equipment | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Arquilla, Bonnie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Halpern, Pinchas |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Silverberg, Mark |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sinert, Richard |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Prehospital and disaster medicine |d 1990 |g 36(2021), 4 vom: 14. Aug., Seite 375-379 |w (DE-627)NLM088852083 |x 1945-1938 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:36 |g year:2021 |g number:4 |g day:14 |g month:08 |g pages:375-379 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1049023X21000492 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 36 |j 2021 |e 4 |b 14 |c 08 |h 375-379 | ||