Video Laryngoscope Intubation With an Aerosol Barrier Device: A Randomized Sequential Crossover Pilot Study

To assess the impact of the use of aerosol barrier device, Splashguard-CG, on the endotracheal intubation with different types of laryngoscope.

A pilot randomized sequential crossover simulation study.

A single academic center in Japan.

Physicians in a single academic university hospital in Japan.

Use of Splashguard-CG.

All participants were asked to perform endotracheal intubation to a manikin simulator using three different devices (Macintosh laryngoscope; Airway Scope [Nihon Kohden, Tokyo, Japan]; and McGRATH MAC [Aircraft Medical, Edinburgh, United Kingdom]) with and without Splashguard-CG in place, which required a total of six attempts and measured the intubation time as the primary outcome. Thirty physicians (15 experienced physicians and 15 less-experienced physicians) were included. Intubation time using Macintosh laryngoscope was significantly longer in the group with Macintosh laryngoscope and Splashguard-CG compared with the group without Splashguard-CG by the median difference of 4.3 seconds (interquartile range, 2.6-7.4 s; p < 0.001). There was no significant increase in the intubation time with or without Splashguard-CG for the Airway Scope (0.6 s; interquartile range, -3.7 to 3.2 s; p = 0.97) and the McGRATH MAC (0.5 s; interquartile range, -1.4 to 4.6 s; p = 0.09). This trend was found in both the experienced and less-experienced groups. We observed significant increases of subjective difficulty of the endotracheal intubation evaluated by using a Visual Analog Scale in the Splashguard-CG groups for all three types of devices.

The use of a video laryngoscope with an aerosol barrier device does not impact the time required endotracheal intubation in a simulation environment. This method can be considered as airway management for coronavirus disease 2019.