Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 21, 2025

A Novel Rescue Technique for Difficult Intubation and Difficult Ventilation
Published on: January 17, 2011
The aerosol box for intubation in coronavirus disease 2019 patients: an in-situ simulation crossover study
J L Begley1,2, K E Lavery1, C P Nickson3,4
1Intensive Care Unit, Cabrini Hospital, Malvern, Vic, Australia.
Abstract:
The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to the manufacturing of novel devices to protect clinicians from the risk of transmission, including the aerosol box for use during tracheal intubation. We evaluated the impact of two aerosol boxes (an early-generation box and a latest-generation box) on intubations in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 with an in-situ simulation crossover study. The simulated process complied with the Safe Airway Society coronavirus disease 2019 airway management guidelines. The primary outcome was intubation time; secondary outcomes included first-pass success and breaches to personal protective equipment. All intubations were performed by specialist (consultant) anaesthetists and video recorded. Twelve anaesthetists performed 36 intubations. Intubation time with no aerosol box was significantly shorter than with the early-generation box (median (IQR [range]) 42.9 (32.9-46.9 [30.9-57.6])s vs. 82.1 (45.1-98.3 [30.8-180.0])s p = 0.002) and the latest-generation box (52.4 (43.1-70.3 [35.7-169.2])s, p = 0.008). No intubations without a box took more than 1 min, whereas 14 (58%) intubations with a box took over 1 min and 4 (17%) took over 2 min (including one failure). Without an aerosol box, all anaesthetists obtained first-pass success. With the early-generation and latest-generation boxes, 9 (75%) and 10 (83%) participants obtained first-pass success, respectively. One breach of personal protective equipment occurred using the early-generation box and seven breaches occurred using the latest-generation box. Aerosol boxes may increase intubation times and therefore expose patients to the risk of hypoxia. They may cause damage to conventional personal protective equipment and therefore place clinicians at risk of infection. Further research is required before these devices can be considered safe for clinical use.
More Related Videos
05:46A Novel Inhalation Mask System to Deliver High Concentrations of Nitric Oxide Gas in Spontaneously Breathing Subjects
Published on: May 4, 2021
05:43Topical Airway Anesthesia for Awake-endoscopic Intubation Using the Spray-as-you-go Technique with High Oxygen Flow
Published on: January 13, 2017
Related Concept Videos
Suctioning the Nasopharyngeal Airway
Equipment Required
Acute Respiratory Failure-II
The underlying physiological abnormalities that contribute to hypoxemic respiratory failure include:
Endotracheal Tube Extubation
Procedure
Extubation removes the endotracheal tube (ETT) from the patient on mechanical ventilation. It requires a well-coordinated, multidisciplinary approach involving physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, and other healthcare professionals....
Endotracheal Intubation I: Procedure
The ET tube comprises various components, including a standard adaptor to attach a bag-valve-mask (BVM) or ventilator, a cuff, a pilot balloon, and radiopaque markings along its length to measure the insertion distance. The tube sizes...
Oxygen Delivering System I: Nasal Cannula and Face Mask
Nasal Cannula
A nasal cannula is a lightweight tube split at one end into two prongs and placed in the nostrils. It is typically used to deliver low to medium levels of oxygen.
Suggested flow rate: The suggested flow rate for a nasal cannula typically ranges between 1 and 6 L/min.
Oxygen percentage setting:...
Tracheostomy Suctioning II: Procedure