Browsing by Subject "laryngoscopy"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Feasibility of upright patient positioning and intubation success rates at two academic emergency departments
    (Elsevier, 2017-07) Turner, Joseph S.; Ellender, Timothy J.; Okonkwo, Enola R.; Stepsis, Tyler M.; Stevens, Andrew C.; Sembroski, Erik G.; Eddy, Christopher S.; Perkins, Anthony J.; Cooper, Dylan D.; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    Objectives Endotracheal intubation is most commonly taught and performed in the supine position. Recent literature suggests that elevating the patient's head to a more upright position may decrease peri-intubation complications. However, there is little data on the feasibility of upright intubation in the emergency department. The goal of this study was to measure the success rate of emergency medicine residents performing intubation in supine and non-supine, including upright positions. Methods This was a prospective observational study. Residents performing intubation recorded the angle of the head of the bed. The number of attempts required for successful intubation was recorded by faculty and espiratory therapists. The primary outcome of first past success was calculated with respect to three groups: 0–10° (supine), 11–44° (inclined), and ≥ 45° (upright); first past success was also analyzed in 5 degree angle increments. Results A total of 231 intubations performed by 58 residents were analyzed. First pass success was 65.8% for the supine group, 77.9% for the inclined group, and 85.6% for the upright group (p = 0.024). For every 5 degree increase in angle, there was increased likelihood of first pass success (AOR = 1.11; 95% CI = 1.01–1.22, p = 0.043). Conclusions In our study emergency medicine residents had a high rate of success intubating in the upright position. While this does not demonstrate causation, it correlates with recent literature challenging the traditional supine approach to intubation and indicates that further investigation into optimal positioning during emergency department intubations is warranted.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Safety practices for in-office laryngology procedures during clinical reintroduction amidst COVID-19
    (Wiley, 2021-08) Calcagno, Haley; Anthony, Benjamin P.; Halum, Stacey L.; Parker, Noah P.; Otolaryngology -- Head and Neck Surgery, School of Medicine
    Objective Describe safety practices for performing in-office laryngology procedures during clinical re-introduction amidst the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods An anonymous survey in Qualtrics was created to evaluate demographics, preprocedure testing, practice settings, anesthesia, and personal protective equipment (PPE) use for five procedure categories (non-mucosal-traversing injections, mucosal-traversing injections, endoscopy without suction, endoscopy with suction/mucosal intervention via working channel, and laser via working channel). The survey was emailed to the Fall Voice Community on Doc Matter and to members of the American Broncho-Esophagological Association (ABEA) from May to June 2020. Results Eighty-two respondents were analyzed (response rate: 10%). Respondents represented diverse locations, including international. Most reported academic (71%) or private practices (16%), laryngology fellowship training (76%), and a significant practice devotion to laryngology and broncho-esophagology. During the early re-introduction, most continued to perform all procedure categories. The office was preferred to the OR setting for most, though 36% preferred the OR for laser procedures. There was a preference for preprocedural SARS-Cov2 testing for procedures involving a working channel (>67%), and these procedures had the highest proportion of respondents discontinuing the procedure due to COVID-19. Various types of topical anesthesia were reported, including nebulizer treatments. The most common forms of personal protective equipment utilized were gloves (>95%) and N95 masks (>67%). Powered-air purifying respirators and general surgical masks were used infrequently. Conclusions During the early re-introduction, respondents reported generally continuing to perform office laryngology procedures, while greater mucosal manipulation affected decisions to stop procedures due to COVID-19, perform preprocedural SARS-Cov2 testing, and alter topical anesthesia. Gloves and N95 masks were the predominate PPE. Level of Evidence N/A.