Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
To the Editor,
The correspondence from Wanderer et al. 1 is of great interest and highlights the usefulness of guidelines in clinical decision-making for difficult airway management. Their longitudinal data from a single institution show how difficult airway management may improve by following implementation guidelines. Nevertheless, this work also raises several questions. First, while the relationship between the introduction of the video laryngoscopes (VLS) and an increase in their utilization may seem intuitive, it is not as obvious why these authors report a reduction in the rate of fibreoptic intubations (FOI). Is it possible that VLS reduced the incidence of difficult intubations or that anesthesiologists have become more confident in rescuing an expected difficult intubation with VLS or supraglottic airways (SGAs)?
Second, the use of an Eschmann® tracheal tube introducer (gum elastic bougie) has increased with both direct laryngoscopy (DL) and VLS. It is understandable that these devices were used in cases of suboptimal glottic exposure, as often occurs during DL, but it is unclear why the use of bougies should also increase in cases of improved glottic visualization as with VLS.2 Is it because there are difficulties introducing the endotracheal tube toward the vocal cords when visual-motor coordination is still poor, and therefore proficiency has not yet been achieved?
A third issue relates to the increased use of SGAs. One hypothesis is that this is a consequence of a decision to use SGAs as a first-line device. There is also a possibility that increased use of SGAs may have resulted, in part, as a consequence of failed attempts to rescue a difficult intubation or difficult ventilation.
Finally, the reported incidence of difficult intubation in the two quarters that were analyzed was consistently greater with the use of SGAs than with endotracheal tubes (0.06% vs 0.03%, respectively and 0.019% vs 0.009%, respectively). It is challenging to assess whether or not this result was because placing a SGA is not as easy as it seems.3,4 Unfortunately, as the authors state in their report, assessment of the degree of difficulty in airway management depended solely on subjective experience, which may have affected the results. We anticipate that these questions will be answered in due course, as these types of retrospective analyses are extended to other institutions.
Reply,
We thank Dr. Caldiroli et al. for their interesting comments on our recently published letter regarding the changes in airway management observed over time at our institution.1 Based on our retrospective analysis, we are not able to determine if the reduction in the reported incidence of difficult intubations is due to an overall reduced incidence or an increasing confidence in rescuing an expected difficult intubation.
We did not characterize the skill level of the providers who experienced difficulty with a video laryngoscope (VLS), so we are unable to comment on their levels of visual-motor coordination. Our institution does have a high rate of utilizing an Eschmann® tracheal tube introducer (bougie), reflecting a local practice pattern of using a bougie whenever any difficulty is experienced passing an endotracheal tube. This practice may decrease the rate of traumatic injuries associated with using a VLS with less flexible stylets.2–5
Regarding the use of supraglottic airways, it seems that these airways are being chosen as first-line devices at our institution. A manual review of the airway commentary revealed few instances where these airways were being used as rescue devices.
We agree that it is challenging to make inferences from subjective judgment of difficult airways and welcome analyses of data from other institutions to provide additional context for the trends we observed.
Jonathan P. Wanderer, MD
Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD
Warren S. Sandberg, MD, PhD
Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD
Warren S. Sandberg, MD, PhD
Department of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD
Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Richard H. Epstein, MD
Department of Anesthesiology, Jefferson Medical College, Philadelphia, PA, USA
References
Wanderer JP, Ehrenfeld JM, Sandberg WS, Epstein RH. The changing scope of difficult airway management. Can J Anesth 2013; 60: 1022-4.
Hsu WT, Tsao SL, Chen KY, Chou WK. Penetrating injury of the palatoglossal arch associated with use of the GlideScope videolaryngoscope in a flame burn patient. Acta Anaesthesiol Taiwan 2008; 46: 39-41.
Hirabayashi Y. Pharyngeal injury related to GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2007; 137: 175-6.
Leong WL, Lim Y, Sia AT. Palatopharyngeal wall perforation during Glidescope intubation. Anaesth Intensive Care 2008; 36: 870-4.
Nestler C, Reske AP, Reske AW, Pethke H, Koch T. Pharyngeal wall injury during videolaryngoscopy-assisted intubation. Anesthesiology 2013; 118: 709.
Wanderer JP, Ehrenfeld JM, Sandberg WS, Epstein RH. The changing scope of difficult airway management. Can J Anesth 2013; 60: 1022-4.
Nielsen AA, Hope CB, Bair AE. Glidescope videolaryngoscopy in the simulated difficult airway: bougie vs standard stylet. West J Emerg Med 2010; 11: 426-31.
Szalados JE. Liability and the Airway specialist. Anesthesiology News Guide to Airway Management 2013; 8-11. Available from URL: http://anesthesiologynews.com/Search.aspx?keyword=liability+and+the+airway+specialist (accessed September 2013).
Ramachandran SK, Mathis MR, Tremper KK, Shanks AM, Kheterpal S. Predictors and clinical outcomes from failed Laryngeal Mask Airway UniqueTM: a study of 15,795 patients. Anesthesiology 2012; 116: 1217-26.
Funding
This work was supported solely by institutional funding.
Conflict of interest
None declared.
Competing interests
None declared.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Caldiroli, D., Orena, E. & Cortellazzi, P. Reflections on the changing scope of difficult airway management. Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth 61, 84–85 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-013-0049-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-013-0049-x