Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
KEYWORDS
Airway management Difficult airway management Videolaryngoscopy
Supraglottic airway Airway assessment Difficult airway algorithm
Airway equipment
KEY POINTS
Large database studies have improved our understanding of airway management.
New guidelines have been published to direct our management of the patient with a diffi-
cult airway.
New airway devices have become commonly available and have improved outcomes but
require modification of traditional techniques to maximize success and minimize
complications.
Airway assessment continues to be an imperfect science but should be performed to
reduce the risk of patient harm.
A strategy for airway management that preserves patient oxygenation and ventilation and
avoids aspiration throughout the perioperative period should be used for every patient.
INTRODUCTION
The art and science of airway management have advanced considerably during the
past 10 years. Airway management tools such as second-generation supraglottic air-
ways (SGAs) and video-assisted devices have become commonly available in the
ambulatory setting. These devices have improved patient care and safety, but they
have required anesthesia providers to learn new skills and develop new airway strate-
gies. The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) practice guidelines for man-
agement of the difficult airway have been updated twice since 1993. The revised
guidelines include new airway management techniques and devices and reflect an
improved understanding of the science of airway management.1 Concurrent with
these improvements in our technology is the increasing prevalence of obesity and
Disclosures: Dr P.A. Klock is an unpaid member of the Scientific Advisory Board for Ambu Cor-
poration. He does not have an equity position in this or any other medical device manufacturer.
Dr J. Anderson has no conflict of interest.
Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, University of Chicago, 5841 South Maryland
Avenue, MC-4028, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: janderson@dacc.uchicago.edu
obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), which have nearly doubled in the United States and
substantially increased the number of patients at risk for difficult laryngoscopy, difficult
ventilation, or aspiration of gastric contents. Ambulatory surgery patients are present-
ing with higher body mass indices (BMIs, calculated as weight in kilograms divided by
the square of height in meters) and more comorbid conditions for increasingly com-
plex surgical procedures. This constellation of events requires that anesthesia pro-
viders are fully capable of recognizing and managing patients with a hazardous airway.
Large database studies and review articles have been published that offer insight
into the risk factors for a difficult airway, modes of injury, and clinicians’ responses
to challenging airway situations.2–4 More high-risk patients receive care in ambulatory
centers, in which providers may not have the luxury of extra personnel skilled in airway
management and advanced airway equipment may be limited. Anesthesia providers in
ambulatory centers must continue to stay current with airway management tools and
techniques to continue to provide the best care for their patients.
To frame the conversation regarding airway management, it is helpful to review the
prevalence of airway management difficulty. Relevant data are listed in Box 1.
Adverse airway events are rare. As a result, it is difficult to conduct studies that have
sufficient power to be meaningful. However, as electronic medical records and collab-
orative research increase, large database studies have been published. In the
following section, the salient points of recent large-scale investigations are presented.
The Fourth National Audit Project of the United Kingdom
In 2011, the Royal College of Anesthetists of the United Kingdom and the Difficult
Airway Society of the United Kingdom published the results of the Fourth National
Box 1
Prevalence of difficult airway management
Audit Project (NAP4).2 The audit had 3 purposes: to determine what types of devices
are used for airway management and their relative frequency of use, to determine the
rate of major complications of airway management, and to perform an analysis of the
events leading to these complications. All 309 National Health Service hospitals
collected and returned data related to serious airway complications from September,
2008 to September, 2009. To determine the number of anesthetics delivered in a
year, data were collected for all general anesthesia cases during a 2-week period.
During this period, data were submitted for 114,904 general anesthetics, leading
the investigators to estimate that approximately 2,900,000 anesthetics were deliv-
ered during the 12-month study period. There were 184 confirmed serious patient
complications, with 133 complications occurring during anesthetic management;
36 occurred in the intensive care unit and 15 in the emergency department. The qual-
ity of care provided to patients who died or were seriously injured during anesthetic
management was judged to be good in only 18% of the cases, mixed in 41%, and
poor in 34% (7% of cases were not classified).2 There is bad news and good news
from this finding. The good news is that when good or appropriate care is delivered,
the risk of a serious injury resulting from airway management is about 1 in 100,000,
and the risk of death or brain damage is about 1 per million general anesthetics. The
bad news is that most patients who were injured received suboptimal care. A conclu-
sion that can be drawn from this study is that a significant opportunity exists to
improve airway management across the United Kingdom; the same can likely be
said for North America.
The major themes related to the adverse events captured in the NAP4 study are
listed in Box 2.
There are 4 main lessons from this comprehensive observational study that relate
to ambulatory anesthesia. First, anesthesia providers should plan for unanticipated
airway difficulty and should have an airway strategy for every patient, which includes
several viable plans that can be rapidly executed. Elements of a strategy might
include face mask ventilation, direct laryngoscopy (DL) and videolaryngoscopy
(VL), SGA use, and emergency surgical cricothyrotomy. If an airway management
technique has failed, subsequent attempts of the same technique should be made
only after conditions have been optimized. For example, with DL, proper head and
neck position should be obtained, external laryngeal manipulation applied, and
change of laryngoscope blade or operator considered between attempts. Because
continued attempts with the same technique probably have decreasing usefulness
and may lead to airway edema or bleeding, the number of attempts should be
limited.
Providers should recognize that unlike emergency surgical airway techniques,
percutaneous catheter cricothyrotomy has a high failure rate. Every ambulatory sur-
gery facility should have the tools and appropriately skilled anesthesia providers to
manage an unanticipated difficult airway situation.
The second main lesson from NAP4 is that anesthesia providers should recognize
that not all patients are candidates for airway management using an SGA device. Pa-
tients at highest risk for an adverse event when an SGA is used include those with risk
factors because of a recent meal, delayed gastric emptying, pregnancy or morbid
obesity or those undergoing a procedure in which the operating table is rotated
away from the anesthesia provider.5 Third, if the patient is best managed with an
awake intubation with a flexible bronchoscope, this technique should be used regard-
less of the practice setting. Patients should recover from their anesthetic in an appro-
priately monitored setting and should be discharged only when they are no longer at
risk for airway obstruction.
4 Anderson & Klock Jr
Box 2
Lessons learned from the NAP4 study
Adapted from Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C. The NAP4 report: major complications of airway
management in the UK. London: The Royal College of Anaesthetists; 2011.
The “consider the relative merits and feasibility of basic management choices” section
now contains, “video-assisted laryngoscopy as an initial approach to intubation.” This
feature recognizes the usefulness of VL for routine and difficult airway management.
Throughout the guideline, LMA (laryngeal mask airway) has been changed to SGA or
supraglottic airway. This change recognizes that all brands and types of supraglottic
devices are candidates for use in the difficult airway algorithm. In the nonemergent
pathway in which DL is unsuccessful but the patient can be ventilated by face mask,
video-assisted laryngoscopy is now listed first under “alternative difficult intubation
approaches.” Again, this factor reflects the usefulness of VL when DL has failed.
One of the shortcomings of the algorithm is that “invasive airway access” appears
twice in the algorithm: once as part of the nonemergency pathway and once as part
of the emergency pathway. Retrograde intubation is listed in both sections, but this
technique should not be considered as part of the emergency pathway. Although
percutaneous airway techniques and jet ventilation remain in the algorithm, they are
deemphasized because of the potential for technique failure with percutaneous cath-
eter techniques and the risk for barotrauma and impaired venous return as a result of
high intrathoracic pressure (pulmonary tamponade) caused by jet ventilation tech-
niques. Although not explicitly stated in the 2013 difficult airway algorithm (Fig. 1), if
VL has failed, providers should immediately consider DL, because there have been
anecdotal reports of DL success after VL failure.7
Fig. 1. The ASA difficult airway algorithm. (From Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA,
et al. 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(2):257; with permission.)
There are 3 major types of videolaryngoscopes. The first uses an integrated chan-
nel, through which the endotracheal tube (ETT) is threaded. The second uses a stylet
over which the ETT is loaded and then slid down to intubate the trachea. The third is
the most popular design, known as the rigid blade laryngoscope, with blades of
Airway Management 7
Box 3
Risk factors associated with uLMA failure
varying curvature; ETT placement requires a separate stylet or guide to achieve intu-
bation of the trachea.
Many studies indicate that videolaryngoscopes in each category3,8 can provide a
superior glottic view. However, successful intubation with these devices is not well
documented. A recent systematic review of 77 studies3 described the efficacy of 8
videolaryngoscopes in successful oral endotracheal intubation performed by trained
operators. The following 8 devices were included: GlideScope (Verathon Inc, Bothell,
WA, USA), V-MAC (including C-MAC and Storz Berci DCI) (KARL STORZ Endoscopy-
America, Inc, El Segundo, CA, USA), Bullard (Olympus America Inc, Center Valley, PA,
USA), McGrath (Aircraft Medical, Edinburgh, UK), Bonfils (KARL STORZ Endoscopy-
America, Inc, El Segundo, CA, USA), Airtraq (Prodol Meditec S.A., Vizcaya, Spain),
Pentax AWS (Ambu A/S, Ballerup, Denmark), and LMA CTrach (Teleflex, Research Tri-
angle Park, NC, USA).
VL with these devices had an intubation success rate of 94% to 100% in unse-
lected patients from the general population,3 which is similar to the success rates
for DL. The picture is not so clear for patients with suspected or known difficult
DL. In patients assessed by Mallampati score to be at risk for difficult DL, Healy
and colleagues3 found good evidence for the overall success for use of Airtraq,
CTrach, Glidescope, Pentax AWS, and V-MAC, but weak evidence of overall success
with Bonfils and Bullard scopes. For patients with known difficult DL, there was weak
evidence supporting the use of the Airtraq, Bonfils, Bullard, CTrach, Glidescope, and
Pentax AWS, but this is because of low numbers of patients rather than a small clin-
ical benefit (Table 1).
8 Anderson & Klock Jr
Table 1
Level of evidence for overall success for devices under study
From Healy DW, Maties O, Hovord D, et al. A systematic review of the role of videolaryngoscopy in
successful orotracheal intubation. BMC Anesthesiol 2012;12(1):13.
Healy and colleagues3 found that there are good data to show that some VLs are
useful for anticipated DI. Because the predictive value of airway assessment tools is
limited, we cannot confidently conclude that VLs are useful as rescue devices for pa-
tients with difficult airways when other devices have failed. Failed intubation and
adverse airway events are rare, and it is difficult to prove the usefulness of VL for pa-
tients with known difficult or failed DL, but there may be some evidence that these de-
vices can be useful for less experienced practitioners. In their meta-analysis of
Glidescope use, Griesdale and colleagues8 found that time to intubation and first
time success were improved with Glidescope over DL for inexperienced providers.
The risks of using these devices must also be considered. According to Healy and
colleagues,3 there is no clear evidence that there is an increased risk of traumatic
complications with VL compared with DL in the general population. However, adverse
events with videolaryngoscopes have been reported, and mitigating these risks is
important. Palatal perforation while using both the Glidescope and McGrath has
been documented,9,10 and 1 study of more than 2000 patients7 found a 0.3% inci-
dence of oropharyngeal injury using the Glidescope.
The 4-step process outlined in Box 4 has been suggested by Walls to help avoid
oropharyngeal injury with Glidescope intubation.11
Box 4
Four-step process for VL insertion and intubation
AIRWAY ASSESSMENT
Table 2
Sensitivity and specificity of patient factors associated with difficult intubation
Table 3
Components of the preoperative airway physical examination
This table shows some findings of the airway physical examination that may suggest the presence
of a difficult intubation. The decision to examine some or all of the airway components shown on
this table is dependent on the clinical context and judgment of the practitioner. The table is not
intended as a mandatory or exhaustive list of the components of an airway examination. The order
or presentation in this table follows the line of sight that occurs during conventional oral
laryngoscopy.
From Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, et al. 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(2):262; with permission.
First, one should consider if awake intubation is necessary or feasible for the patient.
NAP4 reported cases in which failure to secure the airway with the patient awake
contributed to adverse events.2 Although preferable, a flexible bronchoscope is not
always required to secure the airway in a conscious patient. With proper topical anes-
thesia, the airway can be secured in a conscious or sedated patient with a conven-
tional laryngoscope, a videolaryngoscope, or even an SGA. In some cases, an
invasive technique (awake tracheostomy, cricothyrotomy, or retrograde intubation)
may be the best choice for the patient, although these are rarely the primary plan in
the ambulatory setting. The anesthesia provider must decide if tracheal intubation is
required or an SGA may be used. If a patient has 1 or more risk factors for LMA failure
as outlined by Ramachandran and colleagues,4 intubation may be the preferred strat-
egy. If an SGA is used, the decision to use a first-generation or second-generation
device may depend on: (1) whether the plan calls for controlled ventilation or sponta-
neous ventilation, (2) the risk of aspiration, and (3) the benefit of suctioning the stom-
ach. In some patients, such as those with limited neck mobility, VL may be the best
first choice. An important decision is whether it is more advantageous to keep the pa-
tient breathing during airway management or if a neuromuscular blocker should be
used to facilitate securing the airway. Regardless of the first choice, contingency plan-
ning must occur and assistance and equipment must be available.
in a comprehensive review article of the history of SGA development and tips for suc-
cessful use by Klock and Hernandez.5
Fig. 2. (A) VL using excessive lifting force. The angle of the handle and the distance
between a reference point on the posterior pharynx of the model and the vallecula are
shown with white lines. Note that the laryngeal opening is well visualized. (B) VL using
less lifting force and a more horizontal handle angle. The white lines show the angle of
the laryngoscope and the relative position of the vallecula from (A). The green lines show
the changes when the handle is slightly angled toward the patient’s feet and less lifting
force is applied. The larynx is not visualized so completely, but it has moved to a more pos-
terior position, which makes intubation much easier.
Fig. 3. (A) Endotracheal tube being deployed off rigid stylet with standard camber orienta-
tion. The arrow indicates the end of the stylet. Note that the tube is directed toward the
location that would be the anterior wall of the trachea. (B) Endotracheal tube being
deployed off rigid stylet with reverse camber orientation. The arrow indicates the end of
the stylet. Note that the tube is directed parallel to the axis of the trachea.
EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT
The ability to manage the patient with a difficult airway requires appropriate equipment
and experienced staff. Current assessment tools are not sensitive enough to always
anticipate which patients may be difficult to mask ventilate or intubate, so equipment
to deal with the unanticipated difficult airway must be readily available. The 2013
updated ASA practice guidelines suggest the contents of a portable difficult airway
cart as listed in Box 6.1
The differences from the 2003 guidelines are the addition of a videolaryngoscope
and the elimination of equipment for retrograde intubation.6 This list should not be
regarded as comprehensive but rather as suggestions for specific devices that
meet the abilities of the least experienced staff and preferences of providers.24 The
cart should be well organized and labeled,24,25 and a designated individual or a group
should be in charge of maintenance of all airway equipment.2,25 A system should be in
place to restock the cart immediately after its use; premade sealed inserts with spe-
cific equipment may make this process more expeditious and reliable.25
Fig. 4. The Bailey maneuver. The SGA is inserted cephalad and posterior to the endotracheal
tube.
Airway Management 15
Box 5
Sequence for LMA exchange in at-risk extubation
Adapted from Mitchell V, Dravid R, Patel A, et al. Difficult Airway Society Guidelines for the
management of tracheal extubation. Anaesthesia 2012;67(3):327; with permission.
Flexible bronchoscopes are expensive, and their limited role in managing the cannot
intubate, cannot ventilate patient may not support having them immediately available
at every airway cart location. If laryngoscopy and mask ventilation are impossible,
there is no role for the use of the flexible bronchoscope in the 2013 guidelines.
Box 6
Suggested contents of the portable storage unit for difficult airway management
Rigid laryngoscope blades of alternative design and size to those routinely used; this may
include a rigid fiber-optic laryngoscope
Videolaryngoscope
Tracheal tubes of assorted sizes
Tracheal tube guides; examples include (but are not limited to) semirigid stylets, ventilating
tube-changer, light wands, and forceps designed to manipulate the distal portion of the
tracheal tube
SGAs (eg, LMA or intubating LMA of assorted sizes for noninvasive airway ventilation/
intubation)
Flexible fiber-optic intubation equipment
Equipment suitable for emergency invasive airway access
An exhaled carbon dioxide detector
The items listed in this table represent suggestions. The contents of the portable storage unit
should be customized to meet the specific needs, preferences, and skills of the practitioner and
health care facility.
From Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, et al. 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(2):262; with permission.
16 Anderson & Klock Jr
However, if ventilation is adequate with a face mask or SGA, there is time to obtain a
flexible bronchoscope. Therefore, one recommendation is to have a fiber-optic scope
within 5 minutes of any anesthetizing location.26 Greenland24 questioned the need for
fiber-optic intubation equipment, because practitioners may lose skills with the device
if continuing practice does not occur. To maintain operator skills, flexible broncho-
scopes can be used regularly in nondifficult situations or in ongoing training sessions.
The investigators of the NAP4 study state, “Anesthetic departments should provide a
service where the skills and the equipment are available to deliver awake fiber-optic
intubation whenever it is indicated.”2
SUMMARY
The tools and techniques that are available to anesthesia providers in the ambulatory
setting have improved considerably during the past 10 years. To fully use these gains,
clinicians must understand the risks and benefits and appropriate clinical settings for
each technique and device. Patients are presenting for ambulatory procedures with
increasing comorbidities and risk factors for difficult airway management. To mitigate
this risk, it is important to develop an airway strategy that includes addressing difficult
mask ventilation, intubation, and SGA use. In doing so, the specialty of anesthesiology
can improve on its strong record of providing excellent patient safety and care.
REFERENCES
1. Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, et al. Practice guidelines for manage-
ment of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anes-
thesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology
2013;118(2):251–70.
2. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C. The NAP4 report: major complications of airway
management in the UK. London: The Royal College of Anaesthetists; 2011.
3. Healy DW, Maties O, Hovord D, et al. A systematic review of the role of videolar-
yngoscopy in successful orotracheal intubation. BMC Anesthesiol 2012;12(1):32.
4. Ramachandran SK, Mathis MR, Tremper KK, et al. Predictors and clinical out-
comes from failed Laryngeal Mask Airway UniqueÔ: a study of 15,795 patients.
Anesthesiology 2012;116(6):1217–26.
5. Hernandez MR, Klock PA, Ovassapian A. Evolution of the extraglottic airway: a
review of its history, applications, and practical tips for success. Anesth Analg
2012;114(2):349–68.
6. Caplan RA, Benumof JL, Berry FA, et al. American Society of Anesthesiologists
Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Practice guidelines for manage-
ment of the difficult airway. An updated report by the American Society of Anesthe-
siologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology 2003;
98(5):1269–77.
7. Aziz MF, Healy D, Kheterpal S, et al. Routine clinical practice effectiveness of the
GlidescopeÒ in difficult airway management: an analysis of 2,004 GlidescopeÒ
intubations, complications, and failures from two institutions. Anesthesiology
2011;114(1):34–41.
8. Griesdale DE, Liu D, McKinney J, et al. GlidescopeÒ video-laryngoscopy versus
direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Can J Anaesth 2012;59(1):41–52.
9. Vincent RD Jr, Wimberly MP, Brockwell RC, et al. Soft palate perforation during
orotracheal intubation facilitated by the GlideScopeÒ videolaryngoscope.
J Clin Anesth 2007;19(8):619–21.
Airway Management 17
10. Williams D, Ball DR. Palatal perforation associated with McGrathÒ videolaryngo-
scope. Anaesthesia 2009;64(10):1144–5.
11. Walls RM. Essential techniques for using the GlideScope video laryngoscope.
In: A clinician’s guide to video laryngoscopy: tips and techniques. New York:
McMahon Publishing and Verathon, Inc; 2009. p. 16–8. Available at: http://
www.anesthesiologynews.com/download/PG093_finalwebWM.pdf. Accessed
October 8, 2013.
12. Cormack RS, Lehane J. Difficult tracheal intubation in obstetrics. Anaesthesia
1984;39:1105–11.
13. el-Ganzouri AR, McCarthy RJ, Tuman KJ, et al. Preoperative airway assessment:
predictive value of a multivariate risk index. Anesth Analg 1996;82:1197–204.
14. Oates JD, Macleod AD, Oates PD, et al. Comparison of two methods for predict-
ing difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth 1991;66(3):305–9.
15. Yamamoto K, Tsubokawa T, Shibata K, et al. Predicting difficult intubation with in-
direct laryngoscopy. Anesthesiology 1997;86(2):316–21.
16. Savva D. Prediction of difficult tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth 1994;73(2):
149–53.
17. Karkouti K, Rose DK, Wigglesworth D, et al. Predicting difficult intubation: a multi-
variate analysis. Can J Anaesth 2000;47(8):730–9.
18. Naguib M, Malabarey T, AlSatli RA, et al. Predictive models for difficult laryngos-
copy and intubation. A clinical, radiologic and three-dimensional computer imag-
ing study. Can J Anaesth 1999;46(8):748–59.
19. Ovassapian A, Glassenberg R, Randel GI, et al. The unexpected difficult airway
and lingual tonsil hyperplasia: a case series and a review of the literature. Anes-
thesiology 2002;97(1):124–32.
20. Brimacombe J, Keller C. The ProSealÔ laryngeal mask airway: a randomized,
crossover study with the standard laryngeal mask airway in paralyzed, anesthe-
tized patients. Anesthesiology 2000;93(1):104–9.
21. Brimacombe J, Keller C, Judd DV. Gum elastic bougie-guided insertion of the
ProSealÔ laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital and introducer tool
techniques. Anesthesiology 2004;100(1):25–9.
22. Nagata T, Kishi Y, Tanigami H, et al. Oral gastric tube-guided insertion of the
ProSealÔ laryngeal mask is an easy and noninvasive method for less experi-
enced users. J Anesth 2012;26(4):531–5.
23. Mitchell V, Dravid R, Patel A, et al. Difficult Airway Society guidelines for the
management of tracheal extubation. Anaesthesia 2012;67(3):318–40.
24. Greenland KB. Difficult airway management in an ambulatory surgical center?
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2012;25(6):659–64.
25. Berkow LC, Greenberg RS, Kan KH, et al. Need for emergency surgical airway
reduced by a comprehensive difficult airway program. Anesth Analg 2009;
109(6):1860–9, 28.
26. Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) guidelines on
equipment to manage a difficult airway during anaesthesia. Available at: http://
www.anzca.edu.au/resources/professional-documents/documents/professional-
standards/pdf-files/PS56-guidelines-on-equipment-to-manage-a-difficult-airway-
during-anaesthesia.pdf. Accessed October 8, 2013.