TY - JOUR
T1 - The Impact of Personal Protection Equipment on Intubation Times
AU - Doukas, Donald
AU - Arquilla, Bonnie
AU - Halpern, Pinchas
AU - Silverberg, Mark
AU - Sinert, Richard
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - decontamination
KW - emergency medicine
KW - hazardous materials (HAZMAT)
KW - intubation
KW - personal protective equipment
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85106958672&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1017/S1049023X21000492
DO - 10.1017/S1049023X21000492
M3 - ???researchoutput.researchoutputtypes.contributiontojournal.article???
C2 - 34039457
AN - SCOPUS:85106958672
SN - 1049-023X
VL - 36
SP - 375
EP - 379
JO - Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
JF - Prehospital and Disaster Medicine
IS - 4
ER -