Objectives: We set out to compare emergency medicine residents' intubating times and success rates for direct laryngoscopy (DL), GlideScope-assisted intubation (GS), and the Supraglottic Airway Laryngopharyngeal Tube (SALT) airway with and without biohazard gear.

Methods: Each resident passed through 2 sets of 3 testing stations (DL, GS, SALT) in succession, intubating Laerdal mannequin heads with the 3 modalities after randomization to start with or without biohazard gear.

Results: Thirty-seven residents participated, and 27 were male (73%); 14 (37.8%) had prior experience intubating in biohazard suits. There was a statistically significant difference in those who had prior intubation experience between DL (37, 100%), GS (32, 86.5%), and SALT (12, 32.4%) (P < .001) and in median time to intubation (48 seconds, no suit; 57 seconds, with suits) (P = .03). There was no statistically significant difference between the overall times to intubate for the 3 devices. First-pass success was highest for DL (91.2%, no suit; 83.7%, suit) followed by GS (89%, no suit; 78.3%, suit) and SALT (51%, no suit; 67.6%, suit).

Conclusion: A minority of participants had prior experience intubating in biohazard suits. Use of biohazard suits extends time to successful intubation. There was no difference in time to intubation for the 3 devices, but first-pass success was highest for DL (with or without biohazard gear).

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2015.02.051DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

biohazard suits
12
intubation devices
8
prior experience
8
experience intubating
8
intubating biohazard
8
suits statistically
8
statistically difference
8
time intubation
8
devices first-pass
8
first-pass success
8

Similar Publications

Development of a Novel Positive Pressure Protective Suit for a Biosafety Level 4 Laboratory in Japan.

Jpn J Infect Dis

March 2023

National Research Center for the Control and Prevention of Infectious Diseases, Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN), Nagasaki University, Japan.

Biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) laboratories are necessary to study microorganisms that are highly pathogenic to humans and have no prevention or therapeutic measures. Currently, most BSL-4 facilities have suit-type laboratories to conduct experiments on highly pathogenic microorganisms. In 2021, the first Japanese suit-type BSL-4 laboratory was constructed at Nagasaki University.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

SARS-CoV-2: Outline, Prevention, and Decontamination.

Pathogens

January 2021

Biohazard Prevention Centre, Faculty of Biology and Environmental Protection, University of Lodz, Pomorska 141/143, 90-236 Lodz, Poland.

The new coronavirus began to spread around the world in late 2019. Initially, it was found only in China, but in the following days there were reported cases of infections in other countries. Subsequently, based on taxonomy, phylogeny, and accepted practice, the virus was officially designated as severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Many developing countries apply technology-based discharge standards that set quantitative limits on pollutant discharges. These standards do not inherently consider ambient constraints and, therefore, cannot guarantee to protect aquatic life from hazardous pollutants. It is a challenge for developing countries to enforce water-quality-based limits for wastewater discharges and guarantee the intended use of water.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Population adoption of social distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic is at times deficient, increasing the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Healthcare workers and those living in areas of intense transmission may benefit from implementing biosafety measures in their daily lives. A mixed-methods approach, combining components of single negotiation text and the Delphi method, was used to create a COVID-19 biosafety-at-home protocol.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

In the UK, research on hazard group 4 (HG4) pathogens requires specialised Containment Level 4 (CL4) facilities. These differ from Biosafety Level 4 (BSL4) conditions in that work is conducted in class III microbiological safety cabinets for primary containment instead of using positive pressure suits. This presents unique challenges associated with the physical restrictions of working in a limited space, and prohibits the use of many techniques and specialist equipment.

View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!