Multicentered study of model of difficult endotracheal intubation by incident reports from university and non-university hospitals

• Main Authors: Ketchada Uerpairojkit, Tharnthip Pranootnarabhal, Yodying Punjasawadwong, Sirilux Chumnanvej, Surasak Tanudsintum, Wirat Wasinwong, Wiroj Pengpol
• Format: Journal
• Published: 2018
• Subjects: Medicine
• Online Access: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=58949083628&origin=inward; http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/60567
• Institution: Chiang Mai University

Objective: To compare the characteristics, causative factors, outcomes, prevention, and suggested preventive strategies of difficult intubation between university (U) and general community (non-U) hospitals. Material and Method: One thousand nine hundred and ninety-six reports were reviewed from Thai anesthesia incident monitoring study (Thai AIMS) conducted in 51 hospitals nationwide between January and June 2007. Thirty-four cases of DI were reported from U hospitals and 69 cases from non-U hospitals. The described details on each report on difficult intubation (DI) in adults undergoing general anesthesia were thoroughly reviewed by three reviewers to give their consensus opinions on causative factors, outcomes, contributing preventive factors, and strategies for corrections. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Results: Patient factors were the most common cause of DI (88% in U and 87% in non-U hospitals). Fifty percent of U and 51% of non-U DI cases were consequences of human errors, which were preventable and mostly based on knowledge (88% vs. 71%) and rules of practice (23% vs. 51%). Substitution of an intubating anesthesiologist, reducing the size of endotracheal tubes, and stylet guided technique were the three commonly used methods after DI. MacCoy laryngoscope, fiber optic-aided intubation, laryngeal mask airway, and Frova introducer were commonly used as substitutes for the standard laryngoscope. Inadequate experience was the major problem of U hospitals, which required additional training to gain more skill. The most common problem of DI in non-U hospitals was inadequate preanesthetic evaluation. Therefore, they required practice guidelines and experienced assistants in difficult situations. Conclusion: Half of DI cases were preventable. DI cases in Non-U hospitals were mostly caused by inadequate preanesthetic evaluation. This indicates the necessities of providing practice guidelines and experienced assistants. In U hospitals, in-training practice of intubation should be performed under supervision. More advanced substitution techniques were applicable in U hospitals.