About: The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study

Facets (new session)
Description
Metadata
Settings
- owl:sameAs
- Inference Rule:

About: The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study Goto Sponge NotDistinct Permalink

An Entity of Type : schema:ScholarlyArticle, within Data Space : covidontheweb.inria.fr associated with source document(s)

Attributes	Values
type	Academic Article research paper schema:ScholarlyArticle
isDefinedBy	Covid-on-the-Web dataset
has title	The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study
Creator	Schumacher, J Ahmad, I Arlidge, J Dudley, D Sicinski, M
Source	Medline; PMC
abstract	The current international COVID‐19 health crisis underlines the importance of adequate and suitable personal protective equipment for clinical staff during acute airway management. This study compares the impacts of standard air‐purifying respirators and powered air‐purifying respirators during simulated difficult airway scenarios. Twenty‐five anaesthetists carried out four different standardised difficult intubation drills, either unprotected (control), or wearing a standard or a powered respirator. Treatment times and wearer comfort were determined and compared. In the wearer comfort evaluation form, operators rated mobility, noise, heat, vision and speech intelligibility. All anaesthetists accomplished the treatment objectives of all study arms without adverse events. Total mean (SD) intubation times for the four interventions did not show significant differences between the powered and the standard respirator groups, being 16.4 (8.6) vs. 19.2 (5.2) seconds with the Airtraq™; 11.4 (3.4) vs. 10.0 (2.1) seconds with the videolaryngoscope; 39.2 (4.5) vs. 40.1 (4.8) seconds with the fibreoptic bronchoscope scope; and 15.4 (5.7) vs. 15.1 (5.0) seconds for standard tracheal intubation by direct laryngoscopy, respectively. Videolaryngoscopy allowed the shortest intubation times regardless of the respiratory protective device used. Anaesthetists rated heat and vision significantly higher in the powered respirator group; however, noise levels were perceived to be significantly lower than in the standard respirator group. We conclude that standard and powered respirators do not significantly prolong simulated advanced intubation procedures.
has issue date	2020-05-28(xsd:dateTime)
bibo:doi	10.1111/anae.15102
bibo:pmid	32335900
has license	no-cc
sha1sum (hex)	ce9d59fbae4d843b172405af0f63d40983dc0d04
schema:url	https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.15102
resource representing a document's title	The impact of respiratory protective equipment on difficult airway management: a randomised, crossover, simulation study
has PubMed Central identifier	PMC7267320
has PubMed identifier	32335900
schema:publication	Anaesthesia
resource representing a document's body	covid:ce9d59fbae4d843b172405af0f63d40983dc0d04#body_text
is schema:about of	named entity 'groups' named entity 'anaesthetists' named entity 'acute' named entity 'seconds' named entity 'seconds' named entity 'IMPACTS' named entity '283' named entity 'MEAN' named entity 'PERCEIVED' named entity 'PROLONG' covid:arg/ce9d59fbae4d843b172405af0f63d40983dc0d04 named entity 'respirators' named entity 'laryngoscopy' named entity 'standard' named entity 'intubation' named entity 'powered' named entity 'COVID-19' named entity 'seconds' named entity 'powered' named entity 'powered' named entity 'intubation' named entity 'speech intelligibility' named entity '10.0' named entity 'respiratory protective device' named entity '2.1' named entity 'Videolaryngoscopy' named entity 'respirator' named entity 'evaluation form' named entity 'intubation' named entity 'wearing' named entity 'vision' named entity 'infection' named entity 'healthcare workers' named entity 'videolaryngoscopy' named entity 'respirator' named entity '21%' named entity 'intubation' named entity 'airway management' named entity 'respirator' named entity 'respirator' named entity 'claustrophobia' named entity 'healthcare professionals' named entity 'risk group' named entity 'airway management' named entity 'assigned protection factor' named entity 'healthcare workers' named entity 'bronchoscopy' named entity 'powered air-purifying respirators' named entity 'particulates' named entity 'intubation' named entity 'fit testing' named entity 'surgical procedures' named entity 'intubation' named entity 'battery-operated' named entity 'Airway management' named entity 'videolaryngoscopy' named entity 'personal protective equipment (PPE' named entity 'occupational hazards' named entity 'pandemics' named entity 'Research and Development' named entity 'chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear' named entity 'research ethics committee' named entity '1, 2' named entity 'aerosol' named entity 'Airtraq' named entity 'Public Health England' named entity 'respirator' named entity 'sputum' named entity 'anaesthetist' named entity 'difficult airway' named entity 'medical staff' named entity 'air supply' named entity 'critically ill patients' named entity 'breathing tube' named entity 'Videolaryngoscopy' named entity 'difficult airway' named entity 'ambient air'

Faceted Search & Find service v1.13.91 as of Mar 24 2020

Alternative Linked Data Documents: Sponger | ODE Content Formats:

RDF

ODATA

Microdata

About

OpenLink Virtuoso version 07.20.3229 as of Jul 10 2020, on Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu), Single-Server Edition (94 GB total memory)
Data on this page belongs to its respective rights holders.
Virtuoso Faceted Browser Copyright © 2009-2024 OpenLink Software