Skip to main content
Download PDF

Aligning difficult airway guidelines with the anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines to develop a COVID-19 difficult airway strategy: a narrative review

Journal of Anesthesia volume 34, pages 924–943 (2020)Cite this article

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is caused by a coronavirus that is transmitted primarily via aerosol, droplets or direct contact. This may place anesthetists at higher risk of infection due to their frequent involvement in aerosol-generating airway interventions. Many anesthethetic COVID-19 guidelines have emerged, whose underlying management principles include minimizing aerosol contamination and protecting healthcare workers. These guidelines originate from Australia and New Zealand, Canada, China, India, Italy, Korea, Singapore, the United States and the United Kingdom. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients may require airway interventions, and difficult tracheal intubation secondary to laryngeal edema has been reported. Pre-pandemic difficult airway guidelines include those from Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Scandinavia, the United States and the United Kingdom. These difficult airway guidelines require modifications in order to align with the principles of the anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines. In turn, most of the anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines do not, or only briefly, discuss an airway strategy after failed tracheal intubation. Our article identifies and compares pre-pandemic difficult airway guidelines with the recent anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines. We combine the principles from both sets of guidelines and explain the necessary modifications to the airway guidelines, to form a failed tracheal intubation airway strategy in the COVID-19 patient. Valuing, and a greater understanding of, these differences and modifications may lead to greater adherence to the new COVID-19 guidelines.

The world is now in the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1]. The virus is highly contagious with a reproductive number (R0) of 2–3 [2]. It is predominantly spread by human-to-human transmission via aerosol, droplets or direct contact [3], and has a case-fatality rate of 3.4% [4].

Airway interventions may be required in COVID-19 patients. One review showed that 0–42% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients required tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation [1]. Furthermore, difficulties during tracheal intubation may be encountered in these patients secondary to laryngeal edema [5]. SARS-CoV-2 may contribute to airway hyperreactivity, and its management is discussed later.

Failed tracheal intubation is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality [6,7,8,9,10]. Many difficult airway guidelines from national anesthesia societies have therefore been published but they pre-date the pandemic, such as those from Canadian [9, 10], France [8], Germany [11], India [12], Japan [7], Scandinavia [13], the United States [14], and the United Kingdom [6]. These guidelines are based on the best level of evidence available, expert consensus opinions and national anesthesia society members’ feedback on securing the airway in patients with difficult airways.

New anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines have been published. However, most only discuss tracheal intubation with important modifications to minimize virus contamination and to protect healthcare workers, but do not discuss an airway strategy should tracheal intubation fail [1, 15,16,17,18,19]. Others only include a brief description on the role of the supraglottic airway for rescue ventilation [20, 21]. Others briefly discuss an airway strategy after failed tracheal intubation [22,23,24] or one that follows previously published DAS guidelines [25]. Our article identifies and compares pre-pandemic difficult airway guidelines with the recent anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines. We combine the principles from both sets of guidelines, and explain the necessary modifications to the airway guidelines, to form an airway strategy to manage the failed tracheal intubation in the COVID-19 patient.

Difficult airway guidelines

We obtained difficult tracheal intubation guidelines by performing a PubMed database search for peer-reviewed English language articles published between 01 January 2010 and 01 January 2020. We used the search terms (‘anesthesia’ OR ‘anesthesiology’ OR ‘anesthesia’ OR ‘anesthesiology”) AND (‘‘guidelines’) AND (‘airway’ OR ‘intubation’). This resulted in 692 articles. We extracted guidelines or consensus statements on adult difficult tracheal intubation from anesthetic societies. We excluded articles pertaining to out-of-theater or pre-hospital settings (2 articles) and those related to obstetric patients (2 articles) and critical care/intensive care patients (3 articles). The remaining nine articles were from the Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) [9, 10], France’s Société Française d’Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR) [8], the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) [11], the All India Difficult Airway Association (AIDAA) [12], the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists (JSA) [7], the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) [13], the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) [14] and the United Kingdom’s Difficult Airway Society (DAS) [6]. These are henceforth collectively termed the ‘airway guidelines’ (Table 1). Extubation following difficult tracheal intubation is beyond the remit of this article, and is not discussed.

Table 1 Comparison of unanticipated difficult airway guidelines and a summary of the COVID-19 guidelines [6,7,8,9, 11,12,13, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]
Full size table

In one large database, less than 2% of registered cases were difficult tracheal intubations, and yet 93% of these were unanticipated [26]. As such, clinicians who perform tracheal intubation must have pre-planned airway strategies, and be trained and be competent in the airway devices and techniques involved in difficult airway management. Most of the airway guidelines discuss either the unanticipated [6, 7, 9, 12, 13] or both the unanticipated and anticipated difficult airway [8, 11]. Two of the airway guidelines focus on the anticipated difficult airway [10, 14].

For the unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation, the airway guidelines formulate an airway strategy based on a sequential series of plans that may be generalized as follows (see Table 1). Plan A is face mask ventilation and tracheal intubation, including considerations regarding patient positioning, preoxygenation and rapid sequence tracheal intubation [6]. Plan B is supraglottic airway insertion and ventilation to maintain oxygenation. Plan C is face mask ventilation. The order of plan B and C is interchangeable depending on the guideline and the clinical circumstances. For simplicity and based on the principle of minimizing aerosol generation for the COVID-19 patient, our article will allocate plan B as supraglottic airway ventilation and plan C as face mask ventilation. Plan D is performing an emergency front-of-neck access (FONA) to manage the resulting “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” scenario. The JSA guidelines uses a traffic signal system to indicate the level of patient risk with green indicating a safe condition, yellow for a semi-emergency condition, and red for a critical emergency condition [7]. These latter guidelines are still consistent with a plan A, B, C, D strategy. The latter is an educational tool but also acts as a cognitive aid for difficult airway management. Failure of each airway plan should be followed by early declaration of failure, calling for expert help, and preparation and implementation of the subsequent airway plan.

COVID-19 anesthesia guidelines

We conducted an electronic search in the PubMed database on 01 June 2020, for all English language articles published between 01 January 2020 and 30 May 2020. The following search terms (‘anesthesia’ OR ‘anesthesiology’ OR ‘anesthesiologist’ OR ‘airway’) AND (‘guidelines’ OR ‘statement’ or ‘recommendations’) AND (‘coronavirus’ OR ‘SARS-CoV-2’ OR ‘COVID-19’) were used. 189 articles were retrieved. Both authors assessed the abstracts of identified articles, and selection was by consensus according to relevance (i.e. comprehensive guidelines on adult tracheal intubation). Twelve international anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines and publications (henceforth collectively termed ‘COVID-19 guidelines’) were included (Table 2) [1, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. They originate from a diverse group of countries: Australia and New Zealand [22], Canada [16, 17], China [19, 24], India [20], Italy [23], Korea [15], Singapore [18], United Kingdom [25], United States [1], and an international collaboration from a clinical data set from China [21]. Most discuss the perioperative management [1, 15, 17,18,19,20, 23], whilst a few focus on airway management [16, 21, 22, 24, 25]. The airway recommendations are based on extrapolation of data and practices from previous transmissible disease outbreaks or pandemics [27,28,29,30,31,32], limited clinical COVID-19 anesthetic airway related data [21], and individual and consensus expert opinion [1, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25].

Table 2 Summary of airway management guidelines for COVID-19 (see main text for full details) [1, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]
Full size table

Principles of COVID-19 anesthetic management

The COVID-19 airway guidelines are based on a “safe, accurate, swift” performance [25]. This involves using the most appropriate ‘airway managers’ who are “all those who manage the airway” [25] with airway interventions such as tracheal intubation, face mask ventilation and supraglottic airway insertion. They include, but are not limited to, anesthetists, intensivists and emergency department physicians. Airway managers should undertake airway techniques that are familiar and reliable, and in which they have been trained [25]. The number of staff present during aerosol generating procedures should safely be at a minimum to decrease the risk of healthcare worker infection [1, 16,17,18,19,20, 22, 25]. Some COVID-19 guidelines recommend excluding staff with risk factors for COVID-19 infection. These include staff > 60 years of age, cardiac disease, chronic respiratory disease, diabetes, recent cancer, immunosuppression or pregnancy [22, 25]. Other healthcare worker infection risk factors include high-risk department, longer duty hours, and suboptimal hand hygiene after contact with patients [33].

The airway guidelines pre-date the pandemic and provide no statements regarding aerosol generating procedures, healthcare worker protection or optimal site for airway management [6, 7, 14]. Aerosol generating procedures should be avoided or minimized (see below). All staff should wear checked and appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). There should be prior preparation of drugs (anesthesia induction agents, neuromuscular blocking agents and, if required, vasoactive drugs) and airway equipment (for tracheal intubation and airway rescue techniques, and those from a nearby difficult airway trolley). Good communication and teamwork are essential, and these may be facilitated by the use of checklists, cognitive aids, practice drills and simulations [1, 22, 23, 34]. Airway managers should lead a ‘team brief’ before commencing the anesthetic management of the patient. The team brief is a meeting of all staff required for the case, such as the airway manager, anesthetic assistant or nurse, theatre nurses, surgeons (who may need to perform an emergency FONA), and theater attendants. A concise discussion of the airway strategy should be provided, including the intended sequence of airway plans and potential problems.

Aerosol generating procedures

Potential aerosol generating procedures are “procedures that mechanically create and disperse aerosols and procedures that induce the patient to produce aerosols” [35]. Anesthetists perform, or are involved in, many such procedures e.g. tracheal intubation, extubation, tracheostomy, suctioning, and various forms of ventilation and oxygen therapies [3]. Performing aerosol generating procedures is associated with an increased risk of virus infection. This includes tracheal intubation (odds ratio 6.6), tracheostomy (odds ratio 4.2), non-invasive ventilation (odds ratio 3.1), and manual ventilation before tracheal intubation (odds ratio 2.8) [29]. Standard infection control precautions (i.e. hand hygiene and wearing appropriate PPE) should be undertaken to minimize exposure to pathogens.

Healthcare worker protection

In China, one study reported a healthcare worker infection rate of 3.8% (63% in Wuhan) with five deaths [36]. In a study of COVID-19 patients undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, the estimated transmission rate to healthcare workers was unlikely to be > 1.5% [21]. In March 2020, the World Health Organization recommended droplet and contact precautions routinely, and airborne precautions for aerosol generating procedures in COVID-19 patients [37]. The minimum level of PPE for airway managers are a particulate respirator, eye protection, gown and gloves [25]. Some COVID-19 guidelines recommend donning a powered air-purifying respirator rather than N95 mask [15, 22] Local guidelines on PPE should be adhered but, since the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission during tracheal intubation is unknown, wearing powered air purifying respirators (if available) is an alternative option as it provides 2.5 to 100 times greater protection than the N95 mask [30].

Appropriate PPE use is associated with low transmission risk [38, 39]. However, complications of wearing PPE include reduced peripheral vision and fogging in the eye goggles (80%) [21] and PPE-associated headaches (in 81% of users) [40]. Wearing powered air-purifying respirators also reduce hearing acuity, and impair auscultation and communication [18]. Closed loop communication (i.e. patient repeating instructions back to the doctor) and pre-operative radiological investigations (e.g. chest X-ray) may therefore help.

Site for airway management

The COVID-19 guidelines recommend that, ideally, airway interventions should be performed in a dedicated area, and in an airborne infection isolation room or a negative pressure room [1, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23, 25]. However, this may not be possible in less equipped hospitals [20]. If required, a portable room high-efficiency particulate air filter can be added [15, 41]. It is also possible to physically convert a standard positive pressure operating theater into a negative pressure environment [42].

Airway manager

The SSAI guidelines state that anesthesia management “should be given by, or under very close supervision by, an experienced” anesthetist [13]. However, the COVID-19 guidelines recommend the airway manager be the most experienced/skilled person, and therefore be the one performing the first attempt at tracheal intubation [15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23, 25]. This is to secure the patient’s airway as rapidly as possible and with the highest chance of success in order to minimize aerosol contamination and to protect healthcare workers. Experience and skill are also required to manage various COVID-19 factors [21, 34]. These include not being able to perform a thorough airway assessment due to urgency and infection control measures, patients having poor cardiorespiratory reserves, and a lack of resources. In addition, in critically ill cases, emergency tracheal intubation has been associated with cardiac arrest (2% of cases) and a risk of pneumothorax [21]. Additional assistance by another clinician to assist in tracheal intubation has been proposed [19, 21].

The number of attempts at tracheal intubation should be limited. After a failed first attempt, the airway manager should consider an alternative device or technique if a repeat attempt is indicated. Multiple attempts at tracheal intubation is associated with the risk of airway edema and trauma, and systemic complications [6, 7, 9, 43]. They also lead to delays, and decrease success, in subsequent airway interventions and to developing a “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” scenario [6, 7, 43]. The DAS guidelines state that “a maximum of three attempts at laryngoscopy are recommended (3 + 1)” with a permissible “+ 1” (fourth attempt) by a “more experienced colleague” [6]. The AIDDA and CAFG guidelines recommend a maximum of three attempts [9, 12]. The JSA recommend a maximum of two attempts “for each anesthesia provider and for each airway device, particularly for direct laryngoscopy” [7]. The DGAI recommends only two attempts at direct laryngoscopy [11]. The SAFR recommends a maximum of two attempts [8]. However, these represent limits and not targets. After an initial failed tracheal intubation attempt, subsequent attempts should be considered “only if a different tactic is used and there is a reasonable expectation of success” [9].

We now discuss airway management of the unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation in the plan A, B, C, D format in the COVID-19 patient. Later, we will discuss the management of the anticipated difficult airway and airway hyperreactivity.

Plan A: patient positioning, preoxygenation, initial face mask ventilation and tracheal intubation

Patient positioning

Various airway guidelines [6, 7, 11,12,13] and COVID-19 guidelines recommend that patients should be placed in a head up (including 45°) or ramped positions [21, 22, 25]. These improve preoxygenation and ventilation, prolongs non-hypoxemic apnea time, and facilitates face mask ventilation, direct laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation [6, 7, 44,45,46]. This is of particular importance in high risk groups e.g. critically ill, hypoxemic, or obese and parturient patients, where rapid and profound desaturation may occur during induction of anesthesia [6,7,8,9]. For the COVID-19 patient, it also decreases airway pressure if face mask ventilation is required. However, such patient positioning may not be adopted for various reasons. Performing tracheal intubation may be less ergonomical for some airway managers. It may require extra equipment such as elevation pillows in the obese patient, or a foot stool to obtain the optimal height for airway intervention. Plastic protective ‘intubating’ boxes may not be as securely positioned, so the use of plastic drapes or sheets may therefore be considered.

Preoxygenation

The airway guidelines recommend preoxygenation with 100% oxygen via a tight-fitting mask for 3–5 min [7, 8, 12,13,14], during 4 or 8 vital capacity breaths [8, 12,13,14], or until an end-tidal oxygen concentration of 90% is attained [6, 12]. Preoxygenation increases oxygen reserves and non-hypoxemic apnea time (up to 7–10 min), and allows more time for airway interventions [6, 47]. Some airway guidelines also recommend preoxygenation via non-invasive ventilation for hypoxemic patients [8, 12, 13], nasal oxygen up to 15 L/min [6], or warmed and humidified high flow nasal oxygen up to 60–70 L/min [6, 12]. High flow nasal oxygen supplementation can be continued after induction of anesthesia to provide apneic oxygenation during attempts at tracheal intubation to prolong non-hypoxemic apnea time [6, 8, 12]. Non-invasive ventilation is also used to preoxygenate patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure [21, 24].

Most of the COVID-19 guidelines recommend face mask preoxygenation with 100% oxygen via a tight fitting mask for 5 min [1, 15, 19,20,21,22, 24]. However, in patients with pulmonary disease, maximal preoxygenation may require 5 min or longer with tidal volume breathing [48]. A closed circuit should be used (anesthetic breathing circuit or a Mapleson C “Water’s” circuit) rather than a bag-valve-mask which may expel virus-contaminated exhaled breath [25]. The latter may be prevented by attaching a viral filter over the mask [15, 19, 22]. Using low gas flows also minimizes airway pressure and aerosol contamination [20].

Various COVID-19 guidelines recommend to avoid low flow nasal oxygen [21, 22, 25], high flow nasal oxygen [15, 18, 20, 22, 23, 25] or non-invasive ventilation [18, 20, 25] due to the risk of aerosol generation [49]. Yet others recommend low flow nasal oxygen [23, 25]. However, in high-fidelity human patient simulators in a negative pressure room, the maximum exhaled air dispersion distances for supplemental oxygen were as follows [50]. For the nasal cannula technique with oxygen flow at 1, 3 and 5 L/min, the distances were 66, 70 and 100 cm [50]. For high flow nasal cannula with oxygen flow at 60 L/min, with the nasal cannula tightly fixed, the distance was 17 cm [50]. However, this increased to 67 cm (sideways leak) if the cannula was not tightly fixed [50]. For non-invasive ventilation via a helmet with inspiratory and expiratory positive airway pressures of 20 and 10 cm H2O, respectively, the dispersion distances were negligible and 27 cm if used with and without a tight air cushion, respectively [50]. However, in a study in two healthy volunteers, there was no significant difference in aerosol production between either low, high flow nasal cannula oxygenation or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation [51]. Aerosol dispersion is dependent on the mode of host generation, complex flow phenomena, integrity of the oxygen cannula or mask interface, environmental conditions (e.g. presence of negative room pressure) and the presence of physical barriers [50, 52]. Due to the conflicting evidence and recommendations, it is reasonable to first attempt pre-oxygenation with a tight fitting mask and to use other supplemental oxygen therapies only if required. Carefully placing a wet gauze or surgical mask over the patient’s nose and mouth (where appropriate) or over the nasal cannula has been recommended [19, 20, 24]. Other strategies to minimize the risk from aerosol contamination include staff wearing high-level PPE, and keeping patients in airborne infection isolation rooms or having negative pressure rooms where possible [1, 15, 17,18,19, 21,22,23,24,25]. Depletion of the oxygen supply due to high flow use is also a risk [25, 39].

Initial face mask ventilation and tracheal intubation

The AIDDA and DAS guidelines recommend that face mask ventilation should be performed soon after induction of anesthesia [6, 12]. The JSA recommends assessing and confirming facemask ventilation before tracheal intubation [7]. However, face mask ventilation is an aerosol generating procedure and should be avoided in COVID-19 patients. This circumvents the traditional teaching of confirming the ability to achieve face mask ventilation before administering neuromuscular blocking agents [53]. As a consequence, it minimizes the delay from induction of anesthesia and the administration of a rapid onset neuromuscular blocking agent, thus allowing tracheal intubation to be performed in the shortest time. However, in patients who are hypoxemic before or during induction, gentle face mask ventilation with small tidal volumes (as part of a ‘modified rapid sequence’) may be applied [6, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23,24,25, 34].

Difficulties in facemask ventilation may be due to leakage of ventilation gas, increased airway resistance, and reduced thoracic compliance [7]. Techniques that minimize peak airway pressures and optimize mask seal are shown in Table 2 [22, 25, 54]. Increasing gas flow to compensate for the gas leakage [7], however, may potentially generate aerosol. An anesthetic circle or Water’s circuit is preferred as its bag is collapsible and can indicate a mask leak, unlike a self-inflating bag-valve-mask [22]. End-tidal oxygen monitoring allows early identification of maximal preoxygenation, indicating that further face mask ventilation is not required and should be stopped [22].

After induction of general anesthesia, tracheal intubation is generally performed after the administration of neuromuscular blocking agents. If difficulties during tracheal intubation are encountered, various airway guidelines recommend full neuromuscular blockade as it abolishes laryngeal reflexes, increases chest compliance, facilitates facemask ventilation, optimizes tracheal intubation conditions, and increases the success rate of tracheal intubation [6, 7, 9, 13]. The airway guidelines recommend rapid sequence induction in patients at risk of aspiration [6], or for emergency situations (“anesthesia that is not planned or not for elective patients”) [13]. It is an “anesthesia induction technique designed to facilitate rapid tracheal intubation in patients at high risk of aspiration” [55]. However, all the COVID-19 guidelines recommend rapid sequence induction as the first-line technique for securing the airway [1, 15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25]. Their rationale differs from the airway guidelines. Tracheal intubation is an aerosol generating procedure, and therefore, a rapid time to tracheal intubation minimizes the risk of aerosolization by preventing coughing and eliminating the need for face mask ventilation. However, in patients with anticipated difficult airways (see below), an alternative airway strategy to rapid sequence induction may be more appropriate [22, 24, 25].

Tracheal intubation forms a better airway seal compared with supraglottic airways [56], and so decreases the risk of aerosolization. One study showed that, at 0.5 L/min gas flow, small leaks occurred in 12% of cases with the laryngeal mask compared with 1.7% with the tracheal tube [57]. A tracheal tube with subglottic suction should be used where possible [25]. After tracheal intubation, a cuff manometer is used to obtain the ideal cuff pressure to minimize a leak. One recommendation states that “if using high airway pressures, ensure a cuff pressure of at least 5 cm H2O above peak inspiratory pressure” to avoid an airway leak [58].

The original use of cricoid pressure was to occlude the esophagus and prevent aspiration of gastric contents, and it was soon incorporated into rapid sequence induction [13]. Various airway guidelines recommend its use to protect the airway from aspiration, and prevent gastric distension during face mask ventilation [6, 7, 11]. Some of the COVID-19 guidelines recommend cricoid pressure [15, 16, 24]. Others instruct not to use it (unless indicated) to maximize tracheal intubation success and not to compromise ventilation [23]. Others recommend its removal if it causes problems [23, 25]. The effectiveness of cricoid pressure is controversial [13], and it is associated with complications e.g. airway obstruction, impeding supraglottic airway insertion, worse laryngoscopic glottic views, and aspiration can still occur [6, 7, 9, 11, 13]. It is reasonable to perform cricoid pressure only if it is indicated (i.e. the patient is at high risk of aspiration).

Various intravenous induction agents are used for rapid sequence induction but each have side effects [55]. Both thiopental and propofol are associated with hypotension [19, 20]. Midazolam has a slow onset of action [19, 20]. Etomidate is associated with worse intubating conditions than propofol and adrenocortical suppression [19, 20]. Ketamine is recommended in patients with an increased risk of cardiovascular instability [25, 55]. Strategies to minimize hypotension during or after tracheal intubation include administering a crystalloid bolus (if not contraindicated), reducing induction agent dose, and the use of vasopressors [21, 25]. Boluses of intravenous induction agents may be indicated during repeated attempts at tracheal intubation to prevent accidental awareness [59].

For rapid sequence induction, the SSAI airway guidelines recommend full neuromuscular blockade with succinylcholine [13], whereas other airway guidelines recommend using either succinylcholine or rocuronium [6,7,8, 12]. The COVID-19 guidelines recommend either succinylcholine (1 to 1.5 mg/kg) [19, 20, 22,23,24,25] or rocuronium (1 to 1.2 mg/kg) [1, 19, 21, 23,24,25]. Succinylcholine is used due to its short duration of action. The reason is that if tracheal intubation fails, then theoretically resumption of spontaneous ventilation will soon follow. However, in a study of apneic healthy patients who received succinylcholine 1 mg/kg, 85% of patients had a pulse oximetry reading (SpO2) ≤ 90% despite spontaneous diaphragmatic movements [60]. In critically ill patients, their oxygen reserves would be more limited as reflected in the study from Wuhan where most patients were hypoxemic before and during emergency tracheal intubation [21]. In the latter study, rocuronium was used in 99% of emergency tracheal intubations [21]. Rocuronium 1 mg/kg, although longer lasting [61], may be a better alternative than succinylcholine. First, its prolonged duration of action maintains optimal intubating conditions for longer and prevents coughing or laryngospasm [1]. Second, rocuronium has a longer non-hypoxemic apnea time than succinylcholine following rapid sequence induction [62]. Third, it can be reversed almost immediately by an appropriate dose of sugammadex [63].

Various airway guidelines do not make a recommendation between conventional direct laryngoscopy or videolaryngoscopy for tracheal intubation [6, 7, 9, 12]. However, videolaryngoscopy has been shown to be superior to direct laryngoscopy [64]. It is associated with improved laryngeal views, reduced difficult views, decreased tracheal intubation difficulty, less failed tracheal intubations with experienced operators, and decreased laryngeal/airway trauma and hoarseness [64]. It also increases the distance between the patient and the airway manager [1]. Videolaryngoscopy is therefore recommended as the first-line technique in COVID-19 patients to maximize first attempt success [17,18,19,20, 22, 23, 25].

In summary, the airway and COVID-19 guidelines recommend pre-oxygenation, either in a head up or a ramped position. Pre-oxygenation in the COVID-19 patient is best performed using a tight-fitting mask. There is conflicting evidence regarding other forms of supplemental oxygen therapy so a surgical mask should be placed over the patient’s mouth and nose (if appropriate) and staff should wear appropriate PPE. The airway guidelines only recommend rapid sequence induction in patients at high risk of aspiration. However, in the COVID-19 patient, to secure the airway in the shortest time and with the highest success rate, rapid sequence induction should be performed by the most experienced/skilled airway manager using a videolaryngoscope. There is conflicting evidence on the utility of cricoid pressure, and it is reasonable to use it only in patients at high risk of aspiration. Fast onset and full neuromuscular blockade can be achieved using either succinylcholine or rocuronium. In various airway guidelines, facemask ventilation is part of plan A or performed soon after induction of anesthesia. The COVID-19 guidelines recommend that facemask ventilation should be avoided but, if needed, then ventilation using low airway pressure and small tidal volumes is recommended.

Plan B: supraglottic airway devices

After failed tracheal intubation, several airway guidelines recommend the insertion of a supraglottic airway for rescue ventilation [6, 12, 13], which is successful in 65–94% of failed tracheal intubation cases [65, 66]. Other airway guidelines recommend facemask ventilation as a plan B [7, 8, 11]. The COVID-19 guidelines recommend using supraglottic airway ventilation as there is less leak compared with using face mask ventilation [15, 22, 25]. It can therefore be used before, and in between, attempts at laryngoscopy [1, 25]. The supraglottic airway should be one that has a success rate, high seal pressure and allows flexible bronchoscopic tracheal intubation. If it is used with controlled ventilation, low airway pressure ventilation should be used and full neuromuscular blockade considered.

If supraglottic airway ventilation is successful, there are four options recommended by the various airway guidelines [6,7,8,9, 11, 12, 14]. First, continue airway management with the supraglottic airway. Second, proceed with flexible bronchoscopic tracheal intubation via the supraglottic airway [67]. Third, wake up the patient. Fourth, performing FONA (whilst ventilation is still possible) [6]. These options are now discussed further in the context of the COVID-19 patient.

In the COVID-19 patient, continuing with a supraglottic airway is not recommended if other options are available for a few reasons. First, continuing with just the supraglottic airway is considered a “high-risk option” [12] since tracheal intubation has already failed. Second, loss of airway control may occur due to airway edema (secondary to prior and repeated airway manipulations), aspiration, laryngospasm and malpositioning of the supraglottic airway. Third, supraglottic airway placement may also be considered aerosol generating due to airway leaks [3]. Leaks may occur secondary to malpositioning (in 50–80% of patients), incorrect size of device, use of high ventilation pressures, or due to laryngospasm [68]. Subsequent airway interventions e.g. face mask ventilation, may generate further aerosol.

Bronchoscopic tracheal intubation via the supraglottic airway should be considered as it has a first time success rate of 90–96% in patients with predicted difficult airways [69]. In addition, the bronchoscopic view may provide useful information on supraglottic airway positioning and airway abnormal anatomy or pathology [7]. In COVID-19 patients, tracheal intubation offers an optimal seal of the airway to prevent aerosolization. During bronchoscopic tracheal intubation, full neuromuscular blockade should be established, and positive pressure ventilation and insufflation or suction via the bronchoscope port avoided [22]. A ‘closed’ method of this technique has been described [70].

Waking up the patient may not be feasible. This may be due to the patient being hemodynamically unstable or hypoxemic, requiring a more definitive airway such as FONA, or where emergency surgery must proceed immediately [6, 9]. For example, in one study, almost 75% of patients requiring emergency tracheal intubation were hypoxemic during the procedure [21]. If a neuromuscular blocking agent was administered, then its reversal is required before waking up the patient. Reversal is by either spontaneous metabolism and elimination of succinylcholine, or administering the appropriate dose of sugammadex if rocuronium was used. However, reversal of neuromuscular blockade may be delayed, and does not guarantee adequate airway patency or recovery of spontaneous/adequate ventilation [6, 7]. In addition, it may also require full reversal of opioids and benzodiazepines if previously administered.

FONA during successful plan B allows a more controlled and less time-sensitive setting than if it needs to be done as plan D (in a “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” scenario, see below).

In summary, the airway guidelines vary in their recommendations for rescue ventilation, using either a face mask or supraglottic airway. The COVID-19 guidelines recommend supraglottic airway ventilation as it forms a better airway seal and has a high success rate. If successful, it is reasonable to use the supraglottic airway as a conduit for flexible bronchoscopic tracheal intubation as the latter has a high success rate and seals the airway to minimize aerosol contamination. Other options after successful supraglottic airway ventilation (e.g. proceeding with surgery with just the supraglottic airway in place, or waking up the patient) may not be feasible or safe to perform.

Plan C: face mask ventilation

A “final attempt at face mask ventilation” as a plan C after both failed tracheal intubation and failed supraglottic airway ventilation is recommended [6]. However, as per the COVID-19 guidelines, face mask ventilation may not have been performed previously as it is an aerosol generating procedure. Face mask ventilation at this stage may prevent or reverse hypoxemia since the patient may have been apneic during the preceding attempts at tracheal intubation and supraglottic airway ventilation. If successful, it avoids the need to perform an emergency FONA, which is invasive and rarely performed by most airway managers. In one study, after failed tracheal intubation, most cases (63.6%) were not associated with difficult face mask ventilation [71]. Gentle face mask ventilation with small tidal volumes should be applied if needed.

The AIDDA and DAS guidelines recommend that, after successful facemask ventilation as a plan C, the patient should be woken up [6, 12], “in all but exceptional circumstances” [6]. The rationale is that the airway control is now not possible by tracheal intubation and supraglottic airway ventilation. Should airway control suddenly then be lost, then the only recourse is performing an emergency FONA. However, waking up the patient has the same considerations and difficulties as mentioned above. If oxygenation is not adequate, then plan D (see below) should be initiated.

In summary, both airway and COVID-19 guidelines recommend both facemask and supraglottic ventilation as rescue ventilation techniques after failed tracheal intubation. As a plan C, if facemask ventilation is successful then the patient should be woken up in all but exceptional circumstances. If it is not successful, then plan D must be implemented immediately.

Plan D: front-of-neck access

In the event of a “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” scenario, the airway manager is required to perform an emergency FONA procedure (Tables 1 and 2). The CAFG and DAS airway guidelines recommend the surgical (‘scalpel, bougie, tube’) method of cricothyroidotomy [6, 9]. The JSA guidelines recommend cannula cricothyroidotomy if the cricothyroid membrane is palpable from the skin [7]. The AIDDA recommends choosing a technique “based on the familiarity of the anesthesiologist and the availability of equipment” [12]. The SSAI airway guidelines do not mention FONA [13]. FONA is aerosol generating since a cannula cricothyroidotomy requires high flow oxygen insufflation or high pressure jet ventilation, and a tracheostomy involves insertion or removal of a tracheostomy tube, or open suctioning through it [49]. Two COVID-19 guidelines recommend a surgical technique [22, 23]. Others recommend either cannula or surgical FONA [21, 25], dependent on training factors [25].

Once a “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” scenario has occurred, the CAFG and DAS airway guidelines recommend full neuromuscular blockade to optimize conditions for FONA attempts, and to relieve laryngospasm and facilitate facemask ventilation [6, 9]. The DAS guidelines also recommend that “100% oxygen should be applied to the upper airway throughout, using a supraglottic airway, a tightly fitting face mask, or nasal insufflation” [6]. However, nasal insufflation and concurrent positive pressure face mask ventilation should be avoided in COVID-19 patients to minimize aerosolization [22].

In summary, both airway and COVID-19 guidelines vary in their recommendations for emergency FONA techniques. The options include a surgical or a cannula cricothyroidotomy, but the latter may potentially cause aerosolization during oxygen insufflation or jet ventilation. The airway guidelines recommend administration of supplemental oxygen when performing FONA. However, in the COVID-19 patient, high flow oxygen and application of positive pressure should be avoided. In addition, full neuromuscular blockade should be established to reverse potential causes of the “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” scenario, and to facilitate airway interventions. As evidence is lacking at the moment, the choice of technique is dependent on the needs of the clinical situation, equipment availability and on the airway manager’s training and familiarity.

Anticipated difficult airway in the COVID-19 patient

After a full airway assessment, airway managers may consider a patient to have an anticipated difficult airway e.g. those with a past history of failed intubation or with severe trismus, fixed cervical neck flexion or airway radiotherapy. However, predictors of difficult airways are not reliable [7, 10, 11, 26]. In one study, only 25% of anticipated difficult tracheal intubation had an actual difficult tracheal intubation [26]. The ASA, CAFG, SAFR, DGAI and JSA airway guidelines include the management of patients with anticipated difficult airways [7, 8, 10, 11, 14], but a full discussion on this topic is beyond the scope of this review.

If a patient with an anticipated difficult airway presents for surgery, an initial decision is whether surgery can be performed under local anesthesia infiltration or regional anesthesia, or if general anesthesia is required. With the latter, the likelihood, and clinical impact, of difficulties in facemask ventilation, supraglottic airway ventilation, laryngoscopy, tracheal intubation and FONA should be assessed [8, 10, 14]. This assessment then guides decision-making between various management choices (basic versus advanced airway techniques) as follows [10, 14]. First, should tracheal intubation be performed after induction of general anesthesia or in the awake patient? Second, should spontaneous ventilation be ablated (usually by neuromuscular blocking agents) or preserved? Third, should the initial tracheal intubation be attempted with direct or indirect laryngoscopy? Fourth, is a non-invasive (e.g. tracheal intubation) or an invasive (FONA) airway technique required? Finally, in rare cases, is cardiopulmonary bypass or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation required (established under local anesthesia of the femoral vessels) before the induction of general anesthesia [7, 10]? These latter techniques are considered in patients with severe tracheal compression [7, 10]. Answering these management choices helps define the best plan A.

In patients at risk of a “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” scenario, tracheal intubation should be performed in the awake, spontaneously ventilating patient. Awake tracheal intubation techniques include direct laryngoscopy, videolaryngoscopy, flexible or rigid tracheal intubating bronchoscopy, and FONA. Awake tracheal intubation has a high success rate with failure occurring in 1–2% of cases [72], and has various advantages in patients with anticipated difficult airways. Avoiding anesthetic induction agents preserves airway patency, protective airway reflexes, and respiratory and cardiovascular function. In addition, if the primary awake tracheal intubation technique fails, then the patient is still awake to allow a change of awake technique and for help to be obtained. Other awake tracheal intubation techniques should then be considered including awake FONA.

The COVID-19 guidelines recommend that awake tracheal intubation should be avoided unless indicated as it is aerosol generating due to potential coughing [18, 20, 25]. Sedation is used to facilitate patient cooperation and to obtund coughing. However, over sedation increases the risk of respiratory depression, airway loss, hypoxia, aspiration and cardiovascular instability [72]. These may in turn require airway interventions that are aerosol generating, e.g. face mask ventilation, tracheal intubation and emergency FONA. Airway topicalization is also required, but may cause aerosolization due to gagging and coughing. Some COVID-19 guidelines recommend avoiding atomizing, spraying or nebulizing local anesthetics [15, 16, 18, 20, 24]. Alternative options include the use of local anesthetic gels or swabs soaked in local anesthetic, or performing the appropriate nerve blocks. A surgical mask should be placed over the patient’s mouth and nose where possible, and staff should wear appropriate PPE. Awake videolaryngoscopy has been recommended over flexible bronchoscopic tracheal intubation as it is faster [16, 23]. Alternatively, the latter may be performed via an endoscopic mask to minimize aerosol contamination [24].

In summary, management of the anticipated difficult airway includes a thorough assessment of the airway, although difficult airway predictors are not fully reliable. The airway guidelines require the formulation of an airway strategy, including deciding on the best plan A based on management choices between basic versus advanced airway techniques. Awake tracheal intubation or awake FONA should be considered in patients at risk of a “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” scenario. In COVID-19 patients, awake tracheal intubation is aerosol generating and should only be performed if indicated. However, sedation and airway topicalization may result in aerosol contamination and care must be taken to minimize this.

SARS-CoV-2 and airway hyperreactivity

The ACE2 receptor for SARS-CoV-2 is expressed on airway epithelium and lung pneumocytes [73]. Respiratory tract virus may damage the epithelium, leading to impaired tracheal smooth muscle relaxation and airway hyperreactivity [74]. The incidence and clinical significance of airway hyperreactivity in COVID-19 patients is uncertain and its management may be extrapolated from the management of asthma and bronchospasm [75]. Prophylactic measures include ensuring an adequate depth of anesthesia and administering intravenous lignocaine 1.5–2 mg/kg prior to airway manipulation [76]. Avoidance of precipitating drugs (e.g. histamine-releasing agents such as atracurium and mivacurium), and using drugs with bronchodilatory properties (e.g. sevoflurane and ketamine), should be considered [75]. Mainstay treatment includes increasing volatile agent concentration, administering steroids, intravenous ketamine or magnesium sulphate, and in refractory cases, intravenous epinephrine. Bronchodilator administration (e.g. salbutamol) is recommended via a metered-dose inhaler rather than via a nebulizer [1, 22]. The inhaler can be connected to the anesthetic breathing circuit, but clamping of the tracheal tube prior to circuit disconnection is recommended [25]. In COVID-19 patients, the use of steroids is controversial due to the concerns of possible viral replication and increased mortality secondary to pneumonia [77].

Conclusion

Airway guidelines form the basis of anesthetists’ training and practice, and these include those for the unanticipated difficult airway and the anticipated difficult airway from Canada, France, Germany, India, Japan, Scandinavia, United States, and the United Kingdom. Since the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic, many COVID-19 anesthesia guidelines have been published but they either do not, or only briefly, discuss formulation of an airway strategy for the COVID-19 patient. Even though the older airway guidelines pre-date the COVID-19 pandemic, they still remain very relevant. Our narrative review identifies and explains the important modifications required to form an up-to-date airway strategy according to the principles of anesthetic COVID-19 management i.e. minimizing aerosol contamination and protecting healthcare workers.

References

  1. Greenland JR, Michelow MD, Wang L, London MJ. COVID-19 infection: implications for perioperative and critical care physicians. Anesthesiology. 2020;132:1346–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Liu Y, Gayle AA, Wilder-Smith A, Rocklöv J. The reproductive number of COVID-19 is higher compared to SARS coronavirus. J Travel Med. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/taaa021(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook TM. Personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic—a narrative review. Anaesthesia. 2020;75:920–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. World Health Organization. WHO Director-General’s opening remarks at the media briefing on COVID-19-11 March 2020. Geneva. 2020. https://www.who.int/dg/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19—3-march-2020. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

  5. McGrath BA, Wallace S, Goswamy J. Laryngeal oedema associated with COVID-19 complicating airway management. Anaesthesia. 2020;75:972.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, Mendonca C, Bhagrath R, Patel A, O’Sullivan EP, Woodall NM, Ahmad I. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:827–48.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists. JSA airway management guideline 2014: to improve the safety of induction of anesthesia. J Anesth. 2014;28:482–93.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Langeron O, Bourgain J-L, Francon D, Amour J, Baillard C, Bouroche G, Rivier MC, Lenfant F, Plaud B, Schoettker P, Fletcher D. Difficult intubation and extubation in adult anaesthesia. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2018;37:639–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Law JA, Broemling N, Cooper RM, Drolet P, Duggan LV, Griesdale DE, Hung OR, Jones PM, Kovacs G, Massey S, Morris IR. The difficult airway with recommendations for management—part 1—difficult tracheal intubation encountered in an unconscious/induced patient. Can J Anaesth. 2013;60:1089–118.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Law JA, Broemling N, Cooper RM, Drolet P, Duggan LV, Griesdale DE, Hung OR, Jones PM, Kovacs G, Massey S, Morris IR. The difficult airway with recommendations for management—part 2—the anticipated difficult airway. Can J Anaesth. 2013;60:1119–38.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Piepho T, Cavus E, Noppens R, Byhahn C, Dorges V, Zwissler B. S1 guidelines on airway management: guideline of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Anaesthesist. 2015;64(Suppl 1):27–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Myatra SN, Shah A, Kundra P, Patwa A, Ramkumar V, Divatia JV, Raveendra US, Shetty SR, Ahmed SM, Doctor JR, Pawar DK. All India Difficult Airway Association 2016 guidelines for the management of unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation in adults. Indian J Anaesth. 2016;60:885–98.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Jensen AG, Callesen T, Hagemo JS, Hreinsson K, Lund V, Nordmark J. Scandinavian clinical practice guidelines on general anaesthesia for emergency situations. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:922–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, Blitt CD, Connis RT, Nickinovich DG, Ovassapian A. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:251–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim HJ, Ko JS, Kim T-Y. Recommendations for anesthesia in patients suspected of COVID-19 coronavirus infection. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2020;73:89–91.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Orser BA. Recommendations for endotracheal intubation of COVID-19 patients. Anesth Analg. 2020;130:1109–10.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Wax RS, Christian MD. Practical recommendations for critical care and anesthesiology teams caring for novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) patients. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67:568–76.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Wong J, Goh QY, Tan Z, Lie SA, Tay YC, Ng SY, Soh CR. Preparing for a COVID-19 pandemic: a review of operating room outbreak response measures in a large tertiary hospital in Singapore. Can J Anaesth. 2020;67:732–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen X, Liu Y, Gong Y, Guo X, Zuo M, Li J, Xu X, Mi W, Huang Y. Perioperative management of patients infected with the novel coronavirus: recommendation from the Joint Task Force of the Chinese Society of Anesthesiology and the Chinese Association of Anesthesiologists. Anesthesiology. 2020;132:1307–16.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Malhotra N, Joshi M, Datta R, Bajwa SJS, Mehdiratta L. Indian society of anaesthesiologists (ISA national) advisory and position statement regarding COVID-19. Indian J Anaesth. 2020;64:259–63.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Yao W, Wang T, Jiang B, Gao F, Wang L, Zheng H, Xiao W, Xu L, Yao S, Mei W, Chen X. Emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: lessons learnt and international expert recommendations. Br J Anaesth. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.026(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Brewster DJ, Chrimes NC, Do TBT, Fraser K, Groombridge CJ, Higgs A, Humar MJ, Leeuwenburg TJ, McGloughlin S, Newman FG, Nickson CP. Consensus statement: safe Airway Society principles of airway management and tracheal intubation specific to the COVID-19 adult patient group. Med J Aust. 2020;212:1.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sorbello M, El-Boghdadly K, Di Giacinto I, Cataldo R, Esposito C, Falcetta S, Merli G, Cortese G, Corso RM, Bressan F, Pintaudi S. The Italian coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak: recommendations from clinical practice. Anaesthesia. 2020;6:724–32.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Zuo M-Z, Huang Y-G, Ma W-H, Xue Z-G, Zhang J-Q, Gong Y-H. Expert recommendations for tracheal intubation in critically ill patients with noval coronavirus disease 2019. Chin Med Sci J. 2020. https://doi.org/10.24920/003724(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Cook TM, El-Boghdadly K, McGuire B, McNarry AF, Patel A, Higgs A. Consensus guidelines for managing the airway in patients with COVID-19: guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society, the Association of Anaesthetists the Intensive Care Society, the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine and the Royal College of Anaesthetists. Anaesthesia. 2020;75:785–99.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Norskov AK, Rosenstock CV, Wetterslev J, Astrup G, Afshari A, Lundstrom LH. Diagnostic accuracy of anaesthesiologists’ prediction of difficult airway management in daily clinical practice: a cohort study of 188 064 patients registered in the Danish Anaesthesia Database. Anaesthesia. 2015;70:272–81.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Caputo KM, Byrick R, Chapman MG, Orser BJ, Orser BA. Intubation of SARS patients: infection and perspectives of healthcare workers. Can J Anaesth. 2006;53:122–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. van Doremalen N, Bushmaker T, Morris DH, Holbrook MG, Gamble A, Williamson BN, Tamin A, Harcourt JL, Thornburg NJ, Gerber SI, Lloyd-Smith JO. Aerosol and surface stability of SARS-CoV-2 as compared with SARS-CoV-1. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1564–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Tran K, Cimon K, Severn M, Pessoa-Silva CL, Conly J. Aerosol generating procedures and risk of transmission of acute respiratory infections to healthcare workers: a systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2012;7:e35797.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Tompkins BM, Kerchberger JP. Personal protective equipment for care of pandemic influenza patients: a training workshop for the powered air purifying respirator. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:933.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Fowler RA, Guest CB, Lapinsky SE, Sibbald WJ, Louie M, Tang P, Simor AE, Stewart TE. Transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome during intubation and mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;169:1198–202.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Rello J, Pérez M, Roca O, Poulakou G, Souto J, Laborda C, Balcells J, Serra J, Masclans JR. High-flow nasal therapy in adults with severe acute respiratory infection: a cohort study in patients with 2009 influenza A/H1N1v. J Crit Care. 2012;27:434–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ran L, Chen X, Wang Y, Wu W, Zhang L, Tan X. Risk factors of healthcare workers with corona virus disease 2019: a retrospective cohort study in a designated hospital of Wuhan in China. Clin Infect Dis. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa287(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Meng L, Qiu H, Wan L, Ai Y, Xue Z, Guo Q, Deshpande R, Zhang L, Meng J, Tong C, Liu H. Intubation and ventilation amid the COVID-19 outbreak: Wuhan’s experience. Anesthesiology. 2020;132:1317–32.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Judson SD, Munster VJ. Nosocomial transmission of emerging viruses via aerosol-generating medical procedures. Viruses. 2019;11:940.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Wu Z, McGoogan JM. Characteristics of and important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72 314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. JAMA. 2020;323:1239–42 (Epub ahead of print).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Africa A. Modes of transmission of virus causing COVID-19: implications for IPC precaution recommendations. https://www.who.int/news-room/commentaries/detail/modes-of-transmission-of-virus-causing-covid-19-implications-for-ipc-precaution-recommendations. Accessed 15 Apr 2020.

  38. Nicolle L. SARS safety and science. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50(983–5):985–8.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Odor PM, Neun M, Bampoe S, Clark S, Heaton D, Hoogenboom EM, Brown M, Patel A, Kamming D. Anaesthesia and COVID-19: infection control. Br J Anaesth. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.025(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Jy Ong J, Bharatendu C, Goh Y, Zy Tang J, Wx Sooi K, Lin Tan Y, Tan B, Teoh HL, Ting Ong S, Allen DM, Sharma VK. Headaches associated with personal protective equipment: a cross-sectional study amongst frontline healthcare workers during COVID-19 (HAPPE study). Headache. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/head.13811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Air | Background | Environmental Guidelines | Guidelines Library | Infection Control | CDC. 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/environmental/background/air.html. Accessed 11 Apr 2020.

  42. Chow TT, Kwan A, Lin Z, Bai W. Conversion of operating theatre from positive to negative pressure environment. J Hosp Infect. 2006;64:371–8.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Mort TC. Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg. 2004;99:607–13 (table of contents).

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Collins JS, Lemmens HJM, Brodsky JB, Brock-Utne JG, Levitan RM. Laryngoscopy and morbid obesity: a comparison of the “sniff” and “ramped” positions. Obes Surg. 2004;14:1171–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Rao SL, Kunselman AR, Schuler HG, DesHarnais S. Laryngoscopy and tracheal intubation in the head-elevated position in obese patients: a randomized, controlled, equivalence trial. Anesth Analg. 2008;107:1912–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Lebowitz PW, Shay H, Straker T, Rubin D, Bodner S. Shoulder and head elevation improves laryngoscopic view for tracheal intubation in nonobese as well as obese individuals. J Clin Anesth. 2012;24:104–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Kim HJ, Asai T. High-flow nasal oxygenation for anesthetic management. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019;72:527–47.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Samain E, Biard M, Farah E, Holtzer S, Delefosse D, Marty J. Monitoring expired oxygen fraction in preoxygenation of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Annales francaises d’anesthesie et de reanimation. 2002;21:14–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Public Health England. COVID-19 personal protective equipment (PPE) 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wuhan-novel-coronavirus-infection-prevention-and-control/covid-19-personal-protective-equipment-ppe. Accessed 20 Apr 2020.

  50. Ferioli M, Cisternino C, Leo V, Pisani L, Palange P, Nava S. Protecting healthcare workers from SARS-CoV-2 infection: practical indications. Eur Respir Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0068-2020(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Miller DC, Beamer P, Billheimer D, Subbian V, Sorooshian A, Campbell BS, Mosier JM. Aerosol Risk with Noninvasive Respiratory Support in Patients with COVID-19. J Am Coll Emerg Physicians Open. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/emp2.12152(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Mittal R, Ni R, Seo J-H. The flow physics of COVID-19. J Fluid Mech. 2020;894. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-fluid-mechanics/article/flow-physics-of-covid19/476E32549012B3620D2452F30F2567F1. Accessed 10 June 2020.

  53. Patel A. Facemask ventilation before or after neuromuscular blocking drugs: where are we now? Anaesthesia. 2014;69:811–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Seet MM, Soliman KM, Sbeih ZF. Comparison of three modes of positive pressure mask ventilation during induction of anaesthesia: a prospective, randomized, crossover study. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26:913–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. El-Orbany M, Connolly LA. Rapid sequence induction and intubation: current controversy. Anesth Analg. 2010;110:1318–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Brimacombe J. The advantages of the LMA over the tracheal tube or facemask: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:1017–23.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Hönemann CW, Hahnenkamp K, Möllhoff T, Baum JA. Minimal-flow anaesthesia with controlled ventilation: comparison between laryngeal mask airway and endotracheal tube. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2001;18:458–66.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Airway management—ICM Anaesthesia COVID-19. ICM anaesthesia COVID-19. https://icmanaesthesiacovid-19.org/covid-19-airway-management-principles. Accessed 24 Apr 2020.

  59. Palmer JM, Pandit JJ, Cook TM. AAGA during induction of anaesthesia and transfer into theatre. In: 5th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Accidental Awareness during General Anaesthesia in the United Kingdom and …; 2014. p. 63–76.

  60. Naguib M, Samarkandi AH, Abdullah K, Riad W, Alharby SW. Succinylcholine dosage and apnea-induced hemoglobin desaturation in patients. Anesthesiology. 2005;102:35–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Magorian T, Flannery KB, Miller RD. Comparison of rocuronium, succinylcholine, and vecuronium for rapid-sequence induction of anesthesia in adult patients. Anesthesiology. 1993;79:913–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Taha SK, El-Khatib MF, Baraka AS, Haidar YA, Abdallah FW, Zbeidy RA, Siddik‐Sayyid SM. Effect of suxamethonium vs rocuronium on onset of oxygen desaturation during apnoea following rapid sequence induction. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:358–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Sorensen MK, Bretlau C, Gatke MR, Sorensen AM, Rasmussen LS. Rapid sequence induction and intubation with rocuronium-sugammadex compared with succinylcholine: a randomized trial. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108:682–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Lewis SR, Butler AR, Parker J, Cook TM, Smith AF. Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for adult patients requiring tracheal intubation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;11:CD011136.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Thomsen JLD, Nørskov AK, Rosenstock CV. Supraglottic airway devices in difficult airway management: a retrospective cohort study of 658,104 general anaesthetics registered in the Danish Anaesthesia Database. Anaesthesia. 2019;74:151–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Parmet JL, Colonna-Romano P, Horrow JC, Miller F, Gonzales J, Rosenberg H. The laryngeal mask airway reliably provides rescue ventilation in cases of unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation along with difficult mask ventilation. Anesth Analg. 1998;87:661–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Lim WY, Wong P. Awake supraglottic airway guided flexible bronchoscopic intubation in patients with anticipated difficult airways: a case series and narrative review. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.19318.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  68. Van Zundert AAJ, Kumar CM, Van Zundert TCRV. Malpositioning of supraglottic airway devices: preventive and corrective strategies. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:579–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Kleine-Brueggeney M, Theiler L, Urwyler N, Vogt A, Greif R. Randomized trial comparing the i-gel™ and Magill tracheal tube with the single-use ILMA™ and ILMA™ tracheal tube for fibreoptic-guided intubation in anaesthetized patients with a predicted difficult airway. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:251–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Wong P, Lim WY, Mok M. Supraglottic airway guided intubation during the COVID-19 pandemic: a closed technique. Anesth Analg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000004951(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  71. Langeron O, Masso E, Huraux C, Guggiari M, Bianchi A, Coriat P, Riou B. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2000;92:1229–36.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ahmad I, El-Boghdadly K, Bhagrath R, Hodzovic I, McNarry AF, Mir F, O’Sullivan EP, Patel A, Stacey M, Vaughan D. Difficult Airway Society guidelines for awake tracheal intubation (ATI) in adults. Anaesthesia. 2020;75:509–28.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Liu PP, Blet A, Smyth D, Li H. The science underlying COVID-19: implications for the cardiovascular system. Circulation. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047549(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Cheah EY, Mann TS, Burcham PC, Henry PJ. Influenza A infection attenuates relaxation responses of mouse tracheal smooth muscle evoked by acrolein. Biochem Pharmacol. 2015;93:519–26.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Woods BD, Sladen RN. Perioperative considerations for the patient with asthma and bronchospasm. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103(Suppl 1):i57–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Adamzik M, Groeben H, Farahani R, Lehmann N, Peters J. Intravenous lidocaine after tracheal intubation mitigates bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:168–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Yang Z, Liu J, Zhou Y, Zhao X, Zhao Q, Liu J. The effect of corticosteroid treatment on patients with coronavirus infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Infect. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2020.03.062(Epub ahead of print).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine (National University of Singapore), Singapore, Singapore

    Patrick Wong

  2. Division of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Sciences, Sengkang General Hospital, Singapore General Hospital, Outram Road, Singapore, 169608, Singapore

    Patrick Wong & Wan Yen Lim

Authors
  1. Patrick Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wan Yen Lim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

PW: This author helped with the conception of work, study design, acquisition of data from literature search, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting manuscript and revisions. WYL: This author helped with the acquisition of data from literature search, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting manuscript and revisions.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wan Yen Lim.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wong, P., Lim, W.Y. Aligning difficult airway guidelines with the anesthetic COVID-19 guidelines to develop a COVID-19 difficult airway strategy: a narrative review. J Anesth 34, 924–943 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02819-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00540-020-02819-2

Keywords

  • COVID-19
  • Coronavirus
  • Difficult airway
  • Airway management
  • Tracheal intubation