PRACTICE Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations that assist the practitioner and patient in making decisions about health care. These recommendations may be adopted, modified, or rejected according to clinical needs and constraints and are not intended to replace local institutional policies. In addition, Practice Guidelines developed by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) are not intended as standards or absolute requirements, and their use cannot guarantee any specific outcome. Practice Guidelines are subject to revision as warranted by the evolution of medical knowledge, technology, and practice. They provide basic recommendations that are supported by a synthesis and analysis of the current literature, expert and practitioner opinion, open-forum commentary, and clinical feasibility data.
* What other guideline statements are available on this topic?∘ These Practice Guidelines update the “Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway,” adopted by the American Society of Anesthesiologists in 2002 and published in 2003*
* Why was this Guideline developed?∘ In October 2011, the Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters elected to collect new evidence to determine whether recommendations in the existing Practice Guideline were supported by current evidence
* How does this statement differ from existing Guidelines?∘ New evidence presented includes an updated evaluation of scientific literature and findings from surveys of experts and randomly selected American Society of Anesthesiologists members. The new findings did not necessitate a change in recommendations
* Why does this statement differ from existing Guidelines?∘ The American Society of Anesthesiologists Guidelines differ from the existing Guidelines because it provides updated evidence obtained from recent scientific literature and findings from new surveys of expert consultants and randomly selected American Society of Anesthesiologists members
This document updates the “Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway: An Updated Report by the Task Force on Difficult Airway Management,” adopted by the ASA in 2002 and published in 2003.
*
Methodology
A. Definition of Difficult Airway
A standard definition of the difficult airway cannot be identified in the available literature. For these Practice Guidelines, a difficult airway is defined as the clinical situation in which a conventionally trained anesthesiologist experiences difficulty with facemask ventilation of the upper airway, difficulty with tracheal intubation, or both. The difficult airway represents a complex interaction between patient factors, the clinical setting, and the skills of the practitioner. Analysis of this interaction requires precise collection and communication of data. The Task Force urges clinicians and investigators to use explicit descriptions of the difficult airway. Descriptions that can be categorized or expressed as numerical values are particularly desirable, because this type of information lendsitself to aggregate analysis and cross-study comparisons. Suggested descriptions include, but are not limited to:
1. Difficult facemask or supraglottic airway (SGA) ventilation (e.g., laryngeal mask airway [LMA], intubating LMA [ILMA], laryngeal tube): It is not possible for the anesthesiologist to provide adequate ventilation because of one or more of the following problems: inadequate mask or SGA seal, excessive gas leak, or excessive resistance to the ingress or egress of gas. Signs of inadequate ventilation include (but are not limited to) absent or inadequate chest movement, absent or inadequate breath sounds, auscultatory signs of severe obstruction, cyanosis, gastric air entry or dilatation, decreasing or inadequate oxygen saturation (SpO2), absent or inadequate exhaled carbon dioxide, absent or inadequate spirometric measures of exhaled gas flow, and hemodynamic changes associated with hypoxemia or hypercarbia (e.g., hypertension, tachycardia, arrhythmia).
2. Difficult SGA placement: SGA placement requires multiple attempts, in the presence or absence of tracheal pathology.
3. Difficult laryngoscopy: It is not possible to visualize any portion of the vocal cords after multiple attempts at conventional laryngoscopy.
4. Difficult tracheal intubation: Tracheal intubation requires multiple attempts, in the presence or absence of tracheal pathology.
5. Failed intubation: Placement of the endotracheal tube fails after multiple attempts.
B. Purposes of the Guidelines for Difficult Airway Management
The purpose of these Guidelines is to facilitate the management of the difficult airway and to reduce the likelihood of adverse outcomes. The principal adverse outcomes associated with the difficult airway include (but are not limited to) death, brain injury, cardiopulmonary arrest, unnecessary surgical airway, airway trauma, and damage to the teeth.
C. Focus
The primary focus of these Guidelines is the management of the difficult airway encountered during administration of anesthesia and tracheal intubation. Some aspects of the Guidelines may be relevant in other clinical contexts. The Guidelines do not represent an exhaustive consideration of all manifestations of the difficult airway or all possible approaches to management.
D. Application
The Guidelines are intended for use by an Anesthesiologists and by individuals who deliver anesthetic care and airway management under the direct supervision of an anesthesiologist. The Guidelines apply to all types of anesthetic care and airway management delivered in anesthetizing locations and is intended for all patients of all ages.
E. Task Force Members and Consultants
The original Guidelines and the first update were developed by an ASA-appointed Task Force of ten members, consisting of Anesthesiologists in private and academic practices from various geographic areas of the United States and two consulting methodologists from the ASA Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters.
The original Guidelines and the first update in 2002 were developed by means of a seven-step process. First, the Task Force reached consensus on the criteria for evidence. Second, original published research studies from peer-reviewed journals relevant to difficult airway management were reviewed and evaluated. Third, expert consultants were asked to: (1) participate in opinion surveys on the effectiveness of various difficult airway management recommendations and (2) review and comment on a draft of the Guidelines. Fourth, opinions about the Guideline recommendations were solicited from a sample of active members of the ASA. Fifth, opinion-based information obtained during open forums for the original Guidelines,
† and for the previous updated Guidelines,
‡ was evaluated. Sixth, the consultants were surveyed to assess their opinions on the feasibility of implementing the updated Guidelines. Seventh, all available information was used to build consensus to finalize the updated Guidelines.
In 2011, the ASA Committee on Standards and Practice Parameters requested that the updated Guidelines published in 2002 be re-evaluated. This update consists of an evaluation of literature published since completion of the first update, and an evaluation of new survey findings of expert consultants and ASA members. A summary of recommendations can be found in appendix 1.
F. Availability and Strength of Evidence
Preparation of these updated Guidelines followed a rigorous methodological process. Evidence was obtained from two principal sources: scientific evidence and opinion-based evidence.
Scientific Evidence
Scientific evidence used in the development of these Guidelines is based on findings from literature published in peer-reviewed journals. Literature citations are obtained from PubMed and other healthcare databases, direct Internet searches, Task Force members, liaisons with other organizations, and from hand searches of references located in reviewed articles.
Findings from the aggregated literature are reported in the text of the Guidelines by evidence category, level, and direction. Evidence categories refer specifically to the strength and quality of the research design of the studies. Category A evidence represents results obtained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and Category B evidence represents observational results obtained from nonrandomized study designs or RCTs without pertinent controls. When available, Category A evidence is given precedence over Category B evidence in the reporting of results. These evidence categories are further divided into evidence levels. Evidence levels refer specifically to the strength and quality of the summarized studyfindings (i.e., statistical findings, type of data, and the number of studies reporting/replicating the findings) within the two evidence categories. For this document, only the highest level of evidence is included in the summary report for each intervention. Finally, a directional designation of benefit, harm, or equivocality for each outcome is indicated in the summary report.
Category A
RCTs report comparative findings between clinical interventions for specified outcomes. Statistically significant (P < 0.01) outcomes are designated as beneficial (B) or harmful (H) for the patient; statistically nonsignificant findings are designated as equivocal (E).
Level 1: The literature contains a sufficient number of RCTs to conduct meta-analysis,
§ and meta-analytic findings from these aggregated studies are reported as evidence.
Level 2: The literature contains multiple RCTs, but the number of RCTs is not sufficient to conduct a viable meta-analysis for the purpose of these Guidelines. Findings from these RCTs are reported as evidence.
Level 3: The literature contains a single RCT, and findings from this study are reported as evidence.
Category B
Observational studies or RCTs without pertinent comparison groups may permit inference of beneficial or harmful relationships among clinical interventions and outcomes. Inferred findings are given a directional designation of beneficial (B), harmful (H), or equivocal (E). For studies that report statistical findings, the threshold for significance is P < 0.01.
Level 1: The literature contains observational comparisons (e.g., cohort, case–control research designs) between clinical interventions for a specified outcome.
Level 2: The literature contains observational studies with associative statistics (e.g., relative risk, correlation, sensitivity/specificity).
Level 3: The literature contains noncomparative observational studies with descriptive statistics (e.g., frequencies, percentages).
Level 4: The literature contains case reports.
Insufficient Evidence
The lack of sufficient scientific evidence in the literature may occur when the evidence is either unavailable (i.e., no pertinent studies found) or inadequate. Inadequate literature cannot be used to assess relationships among clinical interventions and outcomes, since such literature does not permit a clear interpretation of findings due to methodological concerns (e.g., confounding in study design or implementation) or does not meet the criteria for content as defined in the “Focus” of the Guidelines.
Opinion-based Evidence
All opinion-based evidence (e.g., survey data, open-forum testimony, Internet-based comments, letters, and editorials) relevant to each topic was considered in the development of these updated Guidelines. However, only the findings obtained from formal surveys are reported.
Opinion surveys were developed for this update by the Task Force to address each clinical intervention identified in the document. Identical surveys were distributed to expert consultants and ASA members.
Category A: Expert Opinion
Survey findings from Task Force–appointed expert consultants are reported in summary form in the text, with a complete listing of survey responses reported in appendix 2.
Category B: Membership Opinion
Survey findings from a random sample of active ASA members are reported in summary form in the text, with a complete listing of survey responses reported in appendix 2.
Survey responses from expert and membership sources are recorded using a five-point scale and summarized based on median values.
‖
Strongly Agree: Median score of 5 (At least 50% of the responses are 5)
Agree: Median score of 4 (At least 50% of the responses are 4 or 4 and 5)
Equivocal: Median score of 3 (At least 50% of the responses are 3, or no other response category or combination of similar categories contain at least 50% of the responses)
Disagree: Median score of 2 (At least 50% of responses are 2 or 1 and 2)
Strongly Disagree: Median score of 1 (At least 50% of responses are 1)
Category C: Informal Opinion
Open-forum testimony during development of the previous update, Internet-based comments, letters, and editorials are all informally evaluated and discussed during the formulation of Guideline recommendations. When warranted, the Task Force may add educational information or cautionary notes based on this information.
Guidelines
I. Evaluation of the Airway
History.Although there is insufficient literature to evaluate the efficacy of conducting a directed medical history or reviewing previous medical records to identify the presence of a difficult airway, the Task Force points out the obvious value of these activities. Based on recognized associations between a difficult airway and a variety of patient characteristics, some features of a patient’s medical history or previous medical records may be related to the likelihood of encountering a difficult airway.
Observational studies of nonselected patients report associations between several preoperative patient characteristics (
e.g., age, obesity, obstructive sleep apnea, history of snoring) and difficult laryngoscopy or intubation (
Category B2-H evidence).
1–6 Observational studies report difficult intubation or extubation occurring in patients with mediastinal masses (
Category B3-H evidence).
7,
8
Case reports of difficult laryngoscopy or intubation among patients with a variety of acquired or congenital disease states (
e.g., ankylosis, degenerative osteoarthritis, subglottic stenosis, lingual thyroid or tonsillar hypertrophy, Treacher-Collins, Pierre Robin or Down syndromes) are also reported (
Category B4-H evidence).
9–18
The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that an airway history should be conducted, whenever feasible, before the initiation of anesthetic care and airway management in all patients.
Physical Examination.Observational studies of nonselected patients report associations between certain anatomical features (
e.g., physical features of head and neck) and the likelihood of a difficult airway (
Category B2-H evidence).
19–21 The presence of upper airway pathologies or anatomical anomalies may be identified by conducting a pre-procedure physical examination. There is insufficient published evidence to evaluate the predictive value of multiple features of the airway physical examination
versus single features in predicting the presence of a difficult airway.
The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that an airway physical examination should be conducted, whenever feasible, before the initiation of anesthetic care and airway management in all patients. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that multiple features
# should be assessed during a physical examination.
Additional Evaluation.The airway history or physical examination may provide indications for additional diagnostic testing in some patients. Observational studies and case reports indicate that certain diagnostic tests (
e.g., radiography, computed tomography scans, fluoroscopy) can identify a variety of acquired or congenital features in patients with difficult airways (
Category B3-B/B4-B evidence).
22–33 The literature does not provide a basis for using specific diagnostic tests as routine screening tools in the evaluation of the difficult airway.
The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that additional evaluation may be indicated in some patients to characterize the likelihood or nature of the anticipated airway difficulty.
Recommendations for Evaluation of the Airway
History.An airway history should be conducted, whenever feasible, before the initiation of anesthetic care and airway management in all patients. The intent of the airway history is to detect medical, surgical, and anesthetic factors that may indicate the presence of a difficult airway. Examination of previous anesthetic records, if available in a timely manner, may yield useful information about airway management.
Physical Examination.An airway physical examination should be conducted, whenever feasible, before the initiation of anesthetic care and airway management in all patients. The intent of this examination is to detect physical characteristics that may indicate the presence of a difficult airway. Multiple airway features should be assessed (
table 1).
Additional Evaluation.Additional evaluation may be indicated in some patients to characterize the likelihood or nature of the anticipated airway difficulty. The findings of the airway history and physical examination may be useful in guiding the selection of specific diagnostic tests and consultation.
II. Basic Preparation for Difficult Airway Management
Basic preparation for difficult airway management includes: (1) availability of equipment for management of a difficult airway (i.e., portable storage unit), (2) informing the patient with a known or suspected difficult airway, (3) assigning an individual to provide assistance when a difficult airway is encountered, (4) preanesthetic preoxygenation by mask, and (5) administration of supplemental oxygen throughout the process of difficult airway management.
The literature is insufficient to evaluate the benefits of the availability of difficult airway management equipment, informing the patient of a known or suspected difficult airway, or assigning an individual to provide assistance when a difficult airway is encountered.
One RCT indicates that preanesthetic preoxygenation by mask maintains higher oxygen saturation values compared with room air controls (
Category A3-B evidence).
34 Two RCTs indicate that 3 min of preanesthetic preoxygenation maintains higher oxygen saturation values compared with 1 min of preanesthetic preoxygenation (
Category A2-B evidence).
35,
36 Meta-analysis of RCTs indicate that oxygen saturation levels after preoxygenation are equivocal when comparing preoxygenation for 3 min with fast-track preoxygenation of four maximal breaths in 30 s (
Category A1-E evidence).
37–41 Three RCTs indicate that times to desaturation thresholds of 93–95% oxygen concentration are longer for 3 min of preoxygenation (
Category A2-B evidence).
37,
41,
42 Meta-analysis of RCTs comparing postextubation supplemental oxygen with no supplemental oxygen indicates lower frequencies of arterial desaturation during transport with supplemental oxygen to or in the postanesthesia care unit (
Category A1-B evidence).
43–48 Subjects in the above studies do not exclusively consist of patients with difficult airways.
The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that at least one portable storage unit that contains specialized equipment for difficult airway management should be readily available. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that if a difficult airway is known or suspected, the anesthesiologist should: (1) inform the patient (or responsible person) of the special risks and procedures pertaining to management of the difficult airway, (2) ascertain that there is at least one additional individual who is immediately available to serve as an assistant in difficult airway management, (3) administer facemask preoxygenation before initiating management of a difficult airway, and (4) actively pursue opportunities to deliver supplemental oxygen throughout the process of difficult airway management.
Recommendations for Basic Preparation
At least one portable storage unit that contains specialized equipment for difficult airway management should be readily available (
table 2). If a difficult airway is known or suspected, the following steps are recommended:
* Inform the patient (or responsible person) of the special risks and procedures pertaining to management of the difficult airway.
* Ascertain that there is at least one additional individual who is immediately available to serve as an assistant in difficult airway management.
* Administer facemask preoxygenation before initiating management of the difficult airway. The uncooperative or pediatric patient may impede opportunities for preoxygenation.
* Actively pursue opportunities to deliver supplemental oxygen throughout the process of difficult airway management. Opportunities for supplemental oxygen administration include (but are not limited to) oxygen delivery by nasal cannulae, facemask, or LMA, insufflation; and oxygen delivery by facemask, blow-by, or nasal cannulae after extubation of the trachea.
III. Strategy for Intubation of the Difficult Airway
A preplanned preinduction strategy includes the consideration of various interventions designed to facilitate intubation should a difficult airway occur. Noninvasive interventions intended to manage a difficult airway include, but are not limited to: (1) awake intubation, (2) video-assisted laryngoscopy, (3) intubating stylets or tube-changers, (4) SGA for ventilation (e.g., LMA, laryngeal tube), (5) SGA for intubation (e.g., ILMA), (6) rigid laryngoscopic blades of varying design and size, (7) fiberoptic-guided intubation, and (8) lighted stylets or light wands.
Awake Intubation.Studies with observational findings indicate that awake fiberoptic intubation is successful in 88–100% of difficult airway patients (Category B3-B evidence).
49–53 Case reports using other methods for awake intubation (
e.g., blind tracheal intubation, intubation through supraglottic devices, optically guided intubation) also report success with difficult airway patients (Category B4-B evidence).
12,
54–61
Video-assisted Laryngoscopy.Meta-analyses of RCTs comparing video-assisted laryngoscopy with direct laryngoscopy in patients with predicted or simulated difficult airways report improved laryngeal views, a higher frequency of successful intubations, and a higher frequency of first attempt intubations with video-assisted laryngoscopy (Category A1-B evidence); no differences in time to intubation, airway trauma, lip/gum trauma, dental trauma, or sore throat were reported (Category A1-E evidence).
62–70One RCT comparing the use of video-assisted laryngoscopy with Macintosh-assisted intubation reported no significant differences inthe degree of cervical spine deviation (Category A3-E evidence).
69 A study with observational findings and four case reports indicate that airway injury can occur during intubation with video-assisted laryngoscopy (Category B3/B4-H evidence).
71–75
Intubating Stylets or Tube-Changers.Observational studies report successful intubation in 78–100% of difficult airway patients when intubating stylets were used (
Category B3-B evidence).
76–81 Reported complications from intubating stylets include mild mucosal bleeding and sore throat (
Category B3-H evidence).
80 Reported complications after the use of a tube-changer or airway exchange catheter include lung laceration and gastric perforation (
Category B4-H evidence).
82,
83
SGAs for Ventilation. RCTs comparing the LMA with facemask for ventilation were only available for nondifficult airway patients. Case reports indicate that use of the LMA can maintain or restore ventilation for adult difficult airway patients (
Category B4-B evidence).
84–86 Two observational studies indicate that desaturation (SpO
2 < 90%) frequenciesof 0–6% occur when the LMA is used for pediatric difficult airway patients (
Category B3-H evidence).
87,
88 An observational study reports the LMA providing successful rescue ventilation in 94.1% of patients who cannot be mask ventilated or intubated (
Category B3-B evidence).
89 Reported complications of LMA use with difficult airway patients include bronchospasm, difficulty in swallowing, respiratory obstruction, laryngeal nerve injury, edema, and hypoglossal nerve paralysis (
Category B4-H evidence).
90–93 One observational study reports that the laryngeal tube provides adequate ventilation for 95% of patients with pharyngeal and laryngeal tumors.
94
ILMA.RCTs comparing the ILMA with standard laryngoscopic intubation were only available for nondifficult airway patients. Observational studies report successful intubation in 71.4–100% of difficult airway patients when an ILMA was used (
Category B3-B evidence).
95–100 One observational study indicated that when the ILMA is used with a simulated difficult airway using a semirigid collar, 3 of 10 patients were successfully intubated (
Category B3-B evidence).
101 RCTs comparing the fiberoptic ILMA with standard fiberoptic intubation report a higher frequency of first attempt successful intubation for patients with predicted or simulated difficult airways (
Category A2-B evidence).
102,
103 Reported complications from ILMAs include sore throat, hoarseness, and pharyngeal edema (
Category B3-H evidence).
99
Rigid Laryngoscopic Blades of Alternative Design and Size.Observational studies indicate that the use of rigid laryngoscopic blades of alternative design may improve glottic visualization and facilitate successful intubation for difficult airway patients (
Category B3-B evidence).
104,
105
Fiberoptic-guided Intubation.Observational studies report successful fiberoptic intubation in 87–100% of difficult airway patients (
Category B3-B evidence).
106–117 Three RCTs comparing rigid fiberscopes (UpsherScopes, WuScopes, and Bullard laryngoscopes) with rigid direct laryngoscopy report equivocal findings for successful intubation and time to intubate; two of these studies used simulated difficult airways, and the third contained only patients with Mallampati 3–4 scores (
Category A2-E evidence).
118–120
Lighted Stylets or Light Wands.Observational studies report successful intubation in 96.8–100% of difficult airway patients when lighted stylets or light wands were used (
Category B3-B evidence).
120–125 Two RCTs report equivocal findings when comparing lighted stylets with direct laryngoscopy (
Category A2-E evidence).
126,
127
Confirmation of Tracheal Intubation.Studies with observational findings report that capnography or end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring confirms tracheal intubation in 88.5–100% of difficult airway patients (
Category B3-B evidence).
128–130
The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that the anesthesiologist should have a preplanned strategy for intubation of the difficult airway. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that the strategy for intubation of the difficult airway should include the identification of a primary or preferred approach to: (1) awake intubation, (2) the patient who can be adequately ventilated but who is difficult to intubate, and (3) the life-threatening situation in which the patient cannot be ventilated or intubated. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that the strategy for intubation of the difficult airway should include the identification of alternative approaches that can be used if the primary approach fails or is not feasible. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that the strategy for intubation of the difficult airway should include confirmation of tracheal intubation (e.g., capnography).
Recommendations for Strategy for Intubation
The anesthesiologist should have a preformulated strategy for intubation of the difficult airway. The algorithm shown in
figure 1 is a recommended strategy. This strategy will depend, in part, on the anticipated surgery, the condition of the patient, and the skills and preferences of the anesthesiologist. The recommended strategy for intubation of the difficult airway includes:
* An assessment of the likelihood and anticipated clinical impact of six basic problems that may occur alone or in combination: (1) difficulty with patient cooperation or consent, (2) difficult mask ventilation, (3) difficult SGA placement, (4) difficult laryngoscopy, (5) difficult intubation, and (6) difficult surgical airway access.
* A consideration of the relative clinical merits and feasibility of four basic management choices: (1) awake intubation versus intubation after induction of general anesthesia, (2) noninvasive techniquesversus invasive techniques (i.e., surgical or percutaneous airway) for the initial approach to intubation, (3) video-assisted laryngoscopy as an initial approach to intubation, and (4) preservation versus ablation of spontaneous ventilation.
* The identification of a primary or preferred approach to: (1) awake intubation, (2) the patient who can be adequately ventilated but is difficult to intubate, and (3) the life-threatening situation in which the patient cannot be ventilated or intubated.
* The identification of alternative approaches that can be used if the primary approach fails or is not feasible (
table 3).
* The uncooperative or pediatric patient may restrict the options for difficult airway management, particularly options that involve awake intubation. Airway management in the uncooperative or pediatric patient may require an approach (e.g., intubation attempts after induction of general anesthesia) that might not be regarded as a primary approach in a cooperative patient.
* The conduct of surgery using local anesthetic infiltration or regional nerve blockade may provide an alternative to the direct management of the difficult airway, but this approach does not represent a definitive solution to the presence of a difficult airway, nor does it obviate the need for a preformulated strategy for intubation of the difficult airway.
* Confirmation of tracheal intubation using capnography or end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring.
IV. Strategy for Extubation of the Difficult Airway
The literature does not provide a sufficient basis for evaluating the benefits of an extubation strategy for the difficult airway. For purposes of this Guideline, an extubation strategy is considered to be a logical extension of the intubation strategy.
The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that the preformulated extubation strategy should include consideration of: (1) the relative merits of awake extubation versus extubation before the return of consciousness, (2) general clinical factors that may produce an adverse impact on ventilation after the patient has been extubated, and (3) an airway management plan that can be implemented if the patient is not able to maintain adequate ventilation after extubation. The ASA members agree and the consultants strongly agree that the preformulated extubation strategy should include consideration of the short-term use of a device that can serve as a guide for expedited reintubation.
Recommendations for Extubation
The anesthesiologist should have a preformulated strategy for extubation of the difficult airway. This strategy will depend, in part, on the surgery, the condition of the patient, and the skills and preferences of the anesthesiologist.
The recommended strategy for extubation of the difficult airway includes consideration of:
* The relative merits of awake extubation versus extubation before the return of consciousness.
* General clinical factors that may produce an adverse impact on ventilation after the patient has been extubated.
* An airway management plan that can be implemented if the patient is not able to maintain adequate ventilation after extubation.
* Short-term use of a device that can serve as a guide for expedited reintubation. This type of device can be a stylet (intubating bougie) or conduit. Stylets or intubating bougies are usually inserted through the lumen of the tracheal tube and into the trachea before the tracheal tube is removed. Stylets or intubating bougies mayinclude a hollow core that can be used to provide a temporary means of oxygenation and ventilation. Conduits are usually inserted through the mouth and can be used for supraglottic ventilation and intubation. The ILMA and LMA are examples of conduits.
V. Follow-up Care
Follow-up care includes: (1) documentation of difficult airway and management and (2) informing and advising the patient (or responsible person) of the occurrence and potential complications associated with the difficult airway. The literature is insufficient to evaluate the benefits of follow-up care for difficult airway patients.
The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that the anesthesiologist should: (1) document the presence and nature of the airway difficulty in the medical record, (2) inform the patient or responsible person of the airway difficulty that was encountered, and (3) evaluate and follow-up with the patient for potential complications of difficult airway management. The consultants and ASA members strongly agree that the patient should be advised of the potential clinical signs and symptoms associated with life-threatening complications of difficult airway management.
Recommendations for Follow-up Care
The anesthesiologist should document the presence and nature of the airway difficulty in the medical record. The intent of this documentation is to guide and facilitate the delivery of future care. Aspects of documentation that may prove helpful include:
* A description of the airway difficulties that were encountered. The description should distinguish between difficulties encountered in facemask or SGA ventilation and difficulties encountered in tracheal intubation.
* A description of the various airway management techniques that were used. The description should indicate the extent to which each of the techniques served a beneficial or detrimental role in management of the difficult airway.
The anesthesiologist should inform the patient (or responsible person) of the airway difficulty that was encountered. The intent of this communication is to provide the patient (or responsible person) with a role in guiding and facilitating the delivery of future care. The information conveyed may include (but is not limited to) the presence of a difficult airway, the apparent reasons for difficulty, how the intubation was accomplished, and the implications for future care. Notification systems, such as a written report or letter to the patient, a written report in the medical chart, communication with the patient’s surgeon or primary caregiver, a notification bracelet or equivalent identification device, or chart flags, may be considered.
The anesthesiologist should evaluate and follow-up with the patient for potential complications of difficult airway management. These complications include (but are not limited to) edema, bleeding, tracheal and esophageal perforation, pneumothorax, and aspiration. The patient should be advised of the potential clinical signs and symptoms associated with life-threatening complications of difficult airway management. These signs and symptoms include (but are not limited to) sore throat, pain or swelling of the face and neck, chest pain, subcutaneous emphysema, and difficulty swallowing.
Appendix 1: Summary of Recommendations
I. Evaluation of the Airway
* An airway history should be conducted, whenever feasible, before the initiation of anesthetic care and airway management in all patients.
* The intent of the airway history is to detect medical, surgical, and anesthetic factors that may indicate the presence of a difficult airway.
* Examination of previous anesthetic records, if available in a timely manner, may yield useful information about airway management.
* An airway physical examination should be conducted, whenever feasible, before the initiation of anesthetic care and airway management in all patients.
* The intent of the physical examination is to detect physical characteristics that may indicate the presence of a difficult airway.
* Multiple airway features should be assessed.
* Additional evaluation may be indicated in some patients to characterize the likelihood or nature of the anticipated airway difficulty.
* The findings of the airway history and physical examination may be useful in guiding the selection of specific diagnostic tests and consultation.
II. Basic Preparation for Difficult Airway Management
* At least one portable storage unit that contains specialized equipment for difficult airway management should be readily available.
* If a difficult airway is known or suspected, the following steps are recommended:
* Inform the patient (or responsible person) of the special risks and procedures pertaining to management of the difficult airway.
* Ascertain that there is at least one additional individual who is immediately available to serve as an assistant in difficult airway management.
* Administer facemask preoxygenation before initiating management of the difficult airway. The uncooperative or pediatric patient may impede opportunities for preoxygenation.
* Actively pursue opportunities to deliver supplemental oxygen throughout the process of difficult airway management.
* Opportunities for supplemental oxygen administration include (but are not limited to) oxygen delivery by nasal cannulae, facemask or laryngeal mask airway, insufflation; and oxygen delivery by facemask, blow-by, or nasal cannulae after extubation of the trachea.
III. Strategy for Intubation of the Difficult Airway
* The anesthesiologist should have a preformulated strategy for intubation of the difficult airway. The algorithm shown in
figure 1 is a recommended strategy.
* This strategy will depend, in part, on the anticipated surgery, the condition of the patient, and the skills and preferences of the anesthesiologist.
* The recommended strategy for intubation of the difficult airway includes:
* An assessment of the likelihood and anticipated clinical impact of six basic problems that may occur alone or in combination: (1) difficulty with patient cooperation or consent, (2) difficult mask ventilation, (3) difficult supraglottic airway placement, (4) difficult laryngoscopy, (5) difficult intubation, and (6) difficult surgical airway access.
* A consideration of the relative clinical merits and feasibility of four basic management choices: (1) awake intubation versus intubation after induction of general anesthesia, (2) noninvasive techniquesversus invasive techniques (i.e., surgical or percutaneous surgical airway) for the initial approach to intubation, (3) video-assisted laryngoscopy as an initial approach to intubation, and (4) preservationversus ablation of spontaneous ventilation.
* The identification of a primary or preferred approach to: (1) awake intubation, (2) the patient who can be adequately ventilated but is difficult to intubate, and (3) the life-threatening situation in which the patient cannot be ventilated or intubated.
* The identification of alternative approaches that can be used if the primary approach fails or is not feasible.
* The uncooperative or pediatric patient may restrict the options for difficult airway management, particularly options that involve awake intubation.
* Airway management in the uncooperative or pediatric patient may require an approach (e.g., intubation attempts after induction of general anesthesia) that might not be regarded as a primary approach in a cooperative patient.
* The conduct of surgery using local anesthetic infiltration or regional nerve blockade may provide an alternative to the direct management of the difficult airway, but this approach does not represent a definitive solution to the presence of a difficult airway, nor does it obviate the need for a preformulated strategy for intubation of the difficult airway.
* Confirmation of tracheal intubation with capnography or end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring.
IV. Strategy for Extubation of the Difficult Airway
* The anesthesiologist should have a preformulated strategy for extubation of the difficult airway.
* This strategy will depend, in part, on the surgery, the condition of the patient, and the skills and preferences of the anesthesiologist.
* The recommended strategy for extubation of the difficult airway includes consideration of:
* The relative merits of awake extubation versus extubation before the return of consciousness.
* General clinical factors that may produce an adverse impact on ventilation after the patient has been extubated.
* An airway management plan that can be implemented if the patient is not able to maintain adequate ventilation after extubation.
* Short-term use of a device that can serve as a guide for expedited reintubation. This type of device can be a stylet (intubating bougie) or conduit. Stylets or intubating bougies are usually inserted through the lumen of the tracheal tube and into the trachea before the tracheal tube is removed. Stylets or intubating bougies may include a hollow core that can be used to provide a temporary means of oxygenation and ventilation. Conduits are usually inserted through the mouth and can be used for supraglottic ventilation and intubation. The intubating laryngeal mask airway and laryngeal mask airway are examples of conduits.
V. Follow-up Care
* The anesthesiologist should document the presence and nature of the airway difficulty in the medical record. The intent of this documentation is to guide and facilitate the delivery of future care. Aspects of documentation that may prove helpful include (but are not limited to):
* A description of the airway difficulties that were encountered. The description should distinguish between difficulties encountered in facemask or supraglottic airway ventilation and difficulties encountered in tracheal intubation.
* A description of the various airway management techniques that were used. The description should indicate the extent to which each of the techniques served a beneficial or detrimental role in management of the difficult airway.
* The anesthesiologist should inform the patient (or responsible person) of the airway difficulty that was encountered.
* The intent of this communication is to provide the patient (or responsible person) with a role in guiding and facilitating the delivery of future care.
* The information conveyed may include (but is not limited to) the presence of a difficult airway, the apparent reasons for difficulty, how the intubation was accomplished, and the implications for future care.
* Notification systems, such as a written report or letter to the patient, a written report in the medical chart, communication with the patient’s surgeon or primary caregiver, a notification bracelet or equivalent identification device, or chart flags, may be considered.
* The anesthesiologist should evaluate and follow-up with the patient for potential complications of difficult airway management.
* These complications include (but are not limited to) edema, bleeding, tracheal and esophageal perforation, pneumothorax, and aspiration.
* The patient should be advised of the potential clinical signs and symptoms associated with life-threatening complications of difficult airway management.
* These signs and symptoms include (but are not limited to) sore throat, pain or swelling of the face and neck, chest pain, subcutaneous emphysema, and difficulty swallowing.
Appendix 2: Methods and Analyses
A. State of the Literature.
For these updated Guidelines, a review of studies used in the development of the previous update
†† was combined with new studies published from 2002–2012. The scientific assessment of these Guidelines was based on evidence linkages or statements regarding potential relationships between clinical interventions and outcomes. The interventions listed below were examined to assess their relationship to a variety of outcomes related to difficult airway management.
Evaluation of the Airway:
A directed patient history
A directed airway physical examination
Diagnostic tests (e.g., radiography)
Basic Preparation for Difficult Airway Management:
Informing the patient with a known or suspected difficult airway
Availability of equipment for management of a difficult airway (i.e., a portable storage unit)
Availability of an assigned individual to provide assistance when a difficult airway is encountered
Preanesthetic preoxygenation by facemask before induction of anesthesia
Strategies for Intubation and Ventilation:
Awake intubation
Adequate facemask ventilation after induction:
* Videolaryngoscopy
* Intubating stylet, tube-changer, or gum elastic bougie
Laryngeal mask airway:
* Laryngeal mask airway versus facemask
* Laryngeal mask airway versus tracheal intubation
* Laryngeal mask airway versus oropharyngeal airway
Intubating laryngeal mask airway or the laryngeal mask airway as an intubation conduit
Rigid laryngoscopic blades of alternative design or size
Fiberoptic-guided intubation
A lighted stylet or light wand
Inadequate Facemask Ventilation After Induction—Cannot Intubate:
Laryngeal mask airway for emergency ventilation
Rigid bronchoscope
Confirmation of tracheal intubation with capnography or end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring
Awake extubation
Supplemental oxygen:
* Supplemental oxygen delivery before induction by facemask or insufflation
* Supplemental oxygen delivery after extubation by facemask, blow-by, or nasal cannulae of the trachea
Follow-up Care:
Postextubation care and counseling
Documentation of a difficult airway and its management
Registration with an emergency notification service
For the literature review, potentially relevant clinical studies were identified
via electronic and manual searches of the literature. The updated electronic search covered an 11-yr period from 2002 through 2012. The manual search covered a 16-yr period from 1997 through 2012. Over 400 citations that addressed topics related to the evidence linkages were identified. These articles were reviewed and combined with pre-2002 articles used in the original Guidelines, resulting in a total of 693 articles that contained airway management data. Of these, 253 contained data pertaining specifically to difficult airway management. The remaining 440 articles used nondifficult airway patients or an inseparable mix of difficult and nondifficult airway patients as subjects, and findings from these articles are not considered direct evidence. A complete bibliography used to develop these updated Guidelines, organized by section, is available as Supplemental Digital Content 2,
http://links.lww.com/ALN/A903.
Initially, each pertinent study finding was classified and summarized to determine meta-analysis potential. The original Guidelines reported literature pertaining to seven clinical interventions that contained enough studies with well-defined experimental designs and statistical information to conduct formal meta-analyses. New literature pertaining to two clinical interventions contained enough studies with well-defined experimental designs and statistical information sufficient for meta-analyses. These interventions were: (1) preoxygenation: 3–5 min of breathing oxygen versus four maximal breaths, and (2) postextubation supplemental oxygen: delivery by mask, blow-by, or nasal cannulae versus room air.
General variance-based effect-size estimates or combined probability tests were obtained for continuous outcome measures, and Mantel–Haenszel odds ratios were obtained for dichotomous outcome measures. Two combined probability tests were used as follows: (1) the Fisher combined test, producing chi-square values based on logarithmic transformations of the reported P values from the independent studies, and (2) the Stouffer combined test, providing weighted representation of the studies by weighting each of the standard normal deviates by the size of the sample. An odds ratio procedure based on the Mantel–Haenszel method for combining study results using 2 × 2 tables was used with outcome frequency information. An acceptable significance level was set at P < 0.01 (one-tailed). Tests for heterogeneity of the independent studies were conducted to ensure consistency among the study results. DerSimonian–Laird random-effects odds ratios were obtained when significant heterogeneity was found (P < 0.01). To control for potential publishing bias, a “fail-safe n” value was calculated. No search for unpublished studies was conducted, and no reliability tests for locating research results were performed. To be accepted as significant findings, Mantel–Haenszel odds ratios must agree with combined test results whenever both types of data are assessed. In the absence of Mantel–Haenszel odds ratios, findings from both the Fisher and weighted Stouffer combined tests must agree with each other to be acceptable as significant.
New meta-analytic findings were obtained for the following evidence linkages: (1) preoxygenation for 3-5 min
versus 4 deep breaths, (2) videolaryngoscope
versus direct laryngoscopy, and (3) supplemental oxygen after extubation (
table 4).
In the original Guidelines, interobserver agreement among Task Force members and two methodologists was established by interrater reliability testing. Agreement levels using a kappa (κ) statistic for two-rater agreement pairs were as follows: (1) type of study design, κ = 0.64–0.78; (2) type of analysis, κ = 0.78–0.85; (3) evidence linkage assignment, κ = 0.89–0.95; and (4) literature inclusion for database,κ = 0.62–1.00. Three-rater chance-corrected agreement values were: (1) study design, Sav = 0.73, Var (Sav) = 0.008; (2) type of analysis, Sav = 0.80, Var (Sav) = 0.008; (3) linkage assignment, Sav = 0.93, Var (Sav) = 0.003; (4) literature database inclusion, Sav = 0.80, Var (Sav) = 0.032. These values represent moderate to high levels of agreement. For the updated Guidelines, the same two methodologists involved in the original Guidelines conducted the literature review.
B. Consensus-Based Evidence
Consensus was obtained from multiple sources, including: (1) survey opinion from consultants who were selected based on their knowledge or expertise in difficult airway management, (2) survey opinions solicited from active members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists, (3) testimony for the previous update from attendees of a publicly held open-forum at a major national anesthesia meeting
‡‡, (4) Internet commentary, and (5) Task Force opinion and interpretation. The survey rate of return was 63% (n = 66 of 105) for the consultants (
table 5), and 302 surveys were received from active American Society of Anesthesiologists members (
table 6).
An additional survey was sent to the expert consultants asking them to indicate which, if any, of the evidence linkages would change their clinical practices if the Guideline update was instituted. The rate of return was 24% (n = 25 of 105). The percent of responding consultants expecting no change associated with each linkage were as follows: (1) airway history = 84%, (2) airway physical examination =88%, (3) preparation of patient and equipment = 80%, and (4) difficult airway strategy = 80%, extubation strategy =64% and follow-up care = 72%. Eighty-eight percent of the respondents indicated that the Guidelines would have no effect on the amount of time spent on a typical case, and 12% indicated that there would be an increase of the amount of time spent on a typical case with the implementation of these Guidelines. Hundred percent indicated that new equipment, supplies, or training would not be needed to implement the Guidelines, and 100% indicated that implementation of the Guidelines would not require changes in practice that would affect costs.
* American Society of Anesthesiologists: Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway: An Updated Report. ANESTHESIOLOGY 2003; 98:1269–1277.
Cited Here...
† International Anesthesia Research Society 66
th Clinical and Scientific Congress, San Francisco, CA, March 15, 1992.
Cited Here...
‡ American Society of Anesthesiologists Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, October 10, 1999.
Cited Here...
§ All meta-analyses are conducted by the ASA methodology group. Meta-analyses from other sources are reviewed but not included as evidence in this document.
Cited Here...
‖ When an equal number of categorically distinct responses are obtained, the median value is determined by calculating the arithmetic mean of the two middle values. Ties are calculated by a predetermined formula.
Cited Here...
# Including, but not limited to: length of upper incisors, relation of maxillary and mandibular incisors during normal jaw closure and voluntary protrusion, interincisor distance, visibility of uvula, shape of palate, compliance of mandibular space, thyromental distance, length and thickness of neck, and range of motion of head and neck.
Cited Here...
†† American Society of Anesthesiologists: Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway: An Updated Report. Anesthesiology 2003; 98:1269–1277.
Cited Here...
‡‡ American Society of Anesthesiologists Annual Meeting, Dallas, TX, October, 1999.
Cited Here...
References
1. Domino KB, Posner KL, Caplan RA, Cheney FW. Airway injury during anesthesia: A closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:1703–11
2. Ezri T, Medalion B, Weisenberg M, Szmuk P, Warters RD, Charuzi I. Increased body mass index per se is not a predictor of difficult laryngoscopy. Can J Anaesth. 2003;50:179–83
3. Heinrich S, Birkholz T, Ihmsen H, Irouschek A, Ackermann A, Schmidt J. Incidence and predictors of difficult laryngoscopy in 11,219 pediatric anesthesia procedures. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22:729–36
4. Juvin P, Lavaut E, Dupont H, Lefevre P, Demetriou M, Dumoulin JL, Desmonts JM. Difficult tracheal intubation is more common in obese than in lean patients. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:595–600
5. Langeron O, Masso E, Huraux C, Guggiari M, Bianchi A, Coriat P, Riou B. Prediction of difficult mask ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2000;92:1229–36
6. Rocke DA, Murray WB, Rout CC, Gouws E. Relative risk analysis of factors associated with difficult intubation in obstetric anesthesia. Anesthesiology. 1992;77:67–73
7. Azizkhan RG, Dudgeon DL, Buck JR, Colombani PM, Yaster M, Nichols D, Civin C, Kramer SS, Haller JA Jr. Life-threatening airway obstruction as a complication to the management of mediastinal masses in children. J Pediatr Surg. 1985;20:816–22
8. Ferrari LR, Bedford RF. General anesthesia prior to treatment of anterior mediastinal masses in pediatric cancer patients. Anesthesiology. 1990;72:991–5
9. Buckland RW, Pedley J. Lingual thyroid–a threat to the airway. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:1103–5
10. Coonan TJ, Hope CE, Howes WJ, Holness RO, MacInnis EL. Ankylosis of the temporo-mandibular joint after temporal craniotomy: A cause of difficult intubation. Can Anaesth Soc J. 1985;32:158–60
11. Hill CM. Death following dental clearance in a patient suffering from ankylosing spondylitis - a case report with discussion on management of such problems. Br J Oral Surg. 1980;18:73–6
12. Lee HC, Andree RA. Cervical spondylosis and difficult intubation. Anesth Analg. 1979;58:434–5
13. Miyabe M, Dohi S, Homma E. Tracheal intubation in an infant with Treacher-Collins syndrome–pulling out the tongue by a forceps. Anesthesiology. 1985;62:213–4
14. Nagamine Y, Kurahashi K. The use of three-dimensional computed tomography images for anticipated difficult intubation airway evaluation of a patient with Treacher Collins syndrome. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:626–8
15. Nakazawa K, Ikeda D, Ishikawa S, Makita K. A case of difficult airway due to lingual tonsillar hypertrophy in a patient with Down’s syndrome. Anesth Analg. 2003;97:704–5
16. Ramamani M, Ponnaiah M, Bhaskar S, Rai E. An uncommon cause of unanticipated difficult airway. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19:643–5
17. Rasch DK, Browder F, Barr M, Greer D. Anaesthesia for Treacher Collins and Pierre Robin syndromes: A report of three cases. Can Anaesth Soc J. 1986;33(3 Pt 1):364–70
18. Roa NL, Moss KS. Treacher-Collins syndrome with sleep apnea: Anesthetic considerations. Anesthesiology. 1984;60:71–3
19. Rose DK, Cohen MM. The airway: Problems and predictions in 18,500 patients. Can J Anaesth. 1994;41(5 Pt 1):372–83
20. Tremblay MH, Williams S, Robitaille A, Drolet P. Poor visualization during direct laryngoscopy and high upper lip bite test score are predictors of difficult intubation with the GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:1495–500
21. Wilson ME, Spiegelhalter D, Robertson JA, Lesser P. Predicting difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1988;61:211–6
22. Aoi Y, Kamiya Y, Shioda M, Furuya R, Yamada Y. Pre-anesthetic evaluation can play a crucial role in the determination of airway management in a child with oropharyngeal tumor. J Anesth. 2006;20:215–9
23. Bellhouse CP, Doré C. Criteria for estimating likelihood of difficulty of endotracheal intubation with the Macintosh laryngoscope. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1988;16:329–37
24. Daum RE, Jones DJ. Fibreoptic intubation in Klippel-Feil syndrome. Anaesthesia. 1988;43:18–21
25. Fahy L, Horton WA, Charters P. Factor analysis in patients with a history of failed tracheal intubation during pregnancy. Br J Anaesth. 1990;65:813–5
26. Heindel DJ. Deep neck abscesses in adults: Management of a difficult airway. Anesth Analg. 1987;66:774–6
27. Kawai T, Shimozato K, Ochiai S. Elongated styloid process as a cause of difficult intubation. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1990;48:1225–8
28. Keenan MA, Stiles CM, Kaufman RL. Acquired laryngeal deviation associated with cervical spine disease in erosive polyarticular arthritis. Use of the fiberoptic bronchoscope in rheumatoid disease. Anesthesiology. 1983;58:441–9
29. Lyons G. Failed intubation. Six years’ experience in a teaching maternity unit. Anaesthesia. 1985;40:759–62
30. Murashima K, Fukutome T. Jaw thrust manoeuvre for repositioning the epiglottis down folded by the ILM. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:921–2
31. Pollard BA, El-Beheiry H. Pott’s disease with unstable cervical spine, retropharyngeal cold abscess and progressive airway obstruction. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:772–5
32. Sharwood-Smith GH. Difficulty in intubation. Calcified stylohyoid ligament. Anaesthesia. 1976;31:508–10
33. White A, Kander PL. Anatomical factors in difficult direct laryngoscopy. Br J Anaesth. 1975;47:468–74
34. Haynes SR, Allsop JR, Gillies GW. Arterial oxygen saturation during induction of anaesthesia and laryngeal mask insertion: Prospective evaluation of four techniques. Br J Anaesth. 1992;68:519–22
35. Videira RL, Neto PP, do Amaral RV, Freeman JA. Preoxygenation in children: For how long? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1992;36:109–11
36. Xue FS, Tong SY, Wang XL, Deng XM, An G. Study of the optimal duration of preoxygenation in children. J Clin Anesth. 1995;7:93–6
37. Baraka AS, Taha SK, Aouad MT, El-Khatib MF, Kawkabani NI. Preoxygenation: Comparison of maximal breathing and tidal volume breathing techniques. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:612–6
38. Chiron B, Mas C, Ferrandière M, Bonnard C, Fusciardi J, Mercier C, Laffon M. Standard preoxygenation vs two techniques in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 2007;17:963–7
39. Goldberg ME, Norris MC, Larijani GE, Marr AT, Seltzer JL. Preoxygenation in the morbidly obese: A comparison of two techniques. Anesth Analg. 1989;68:520–2
40. Norris MC, Dewan DM. Preoxygenation for cesarean section: a comparison of two techniques. Anesthesiology. 1985;62:827–9
41. Valentine SJ, Marjot R, Monk CR. Preoxygenation in the elderly: A comparison of the four-maximal-breath and three-minute techniques. Anesth Analg. 1990;71:516–9
42. Gambee AM, Hertzka RE, Fisher DM. Preoxygenation techniques: Comparison of three minutes and four breaths. Anesth Analg. 1987;66:468–70
43. Hoffman C, Nakamoto D, Okal R, Clochesy JM. Effect of transport time and FiO2 on SpO2 during transport from the OR to the PACU. Nurse Anesth. 1991;2:119–25
44. Mathes DD, Conaway MR, Ross WT. Ambulatory surgery: Room air versus nasal cannula oxygen during transport after general anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 2001;93:917–21
45. Papageorge MB, Hunter MJ, Norris LH, Rosenberg MB. Supplemental oxygen after outpatient oral and maxillofacial surgery. Anesth Prog. 1992;39:24–7
46. Patel R, Norden J, Hannallah RS. Oxygen administration prevents hypoxemia during post-anesthetic transport in children. Anesthesiology. 1988;69:616–8
47. Smith DC, Crul JF. Early postoperative hypoxia during transport. Br J Anaesth. 1988;61:625–7
48. Vegfors M, Cederholm I, Lennmarken C, Löfström JB. Should oxygen be administered after laparoscopy in healthy patients? Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1988;32:350–2
49. Cohn AI, Zornow MH. Awake endotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine disease: A comparison of the Bullard laryngoscope and the fiberoptic bronchoscope. Anesth Analg. 1995;81:1283–6
50. Larson SM, Parks DH. Managing the difficult airway in patients with burns of the head and neck. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1988;9:55–6
51. Ovassapian A, Krejcie TC, Yelich SJ, Dykes MH. Awake fibreoptic intubation in the patient at high risk of aspiration. Br J Anaesth. 1989;62:13–6
52. Reasoner DK, Warner DS, Todd MM, Hunt SW, Kirchner J. A comparison of anesthetic techniques for awake intubation in neurosurgical patients. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 1995;7:94–9
53. Sidhu VS, Whitehead EM, Ainsworth QP, Smith M, Calder I. A technique of awake fibreoptic intubation. Experience in patients with cervical spine disease. Anaesthesia. 1993;48:910–3
54. Asai T, Matsumoto H, Shingu K. Awake tracheal intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:182–4
55. Dimitriou VK, Zogogiannis ID, Liotiri DG. Awake tracheal intubation using the Airtraq laryngoscope: A case series. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2009;53:964–7
56. Edwards RM, Hunt TL. Blind nasal intubation in an awake patient for caesarian section. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1982;10:151–3
57. McCrirrick A, Pracilio JA. Awake intubation: A new technique. Anaesthesia. 1991;46:661–3
58. Palmer JH, Ball DR. Awake tracheal intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask in a patient with diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis. Anaesthesia. 2000;55:70–4
59. Parnell JD, Mills J. Awake intubation using fast-track laryngeal mask airway as an alternative to fiberoptic bronchoscopy: A case report. AANA J. 2006;74:429–31
60. Suzuki A, Toyama Y, Iwasaki H, Henderson J. Airtraq for awake tracheal intubation. Anaesthesia. 2007;62:746–7
61. Wong JK, Tongier WK, Armbruster SC, White PF. Use of the intubating laryngeal mask airway to facilitate awake orotracheal intubation in patients with cervical spine disorders. J Clin Anesth. 1999;11:346–8
62. Aziz MF, Dillman D, Fu R, Brambrink AM. Comparative effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope versus direct laryngoscopy in the setting of the predicted difficult airway. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:629–36
63. Enomoto Y, Asai T, Arai T, Kamishima K, Okuda Y. Pentax-AWS, a new videolaryngoscope, is more effective than the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with restricted neck movements: A randomized comparative study. Br J Anaesth. 2008;100:544–8
64. Jungbauer A, Schumann M, Brunkhorst V, Börgers A, Groeben H. Expected difficult tracheal intubation: A prospective comparison of direct laryngoscopy and video laryngoscopy in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2009;102:546–50
65. Koh JC, Lee JS, Lee YW, Chang CH. Comparison of the laryngeal view during intubation using Airtraq and Macintosh laryngoscopes in patients with cervical spine immobilization and mouth opening limitation. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2010;59:314–8
66. Lim Y, Yeo SW. A comparison of the GlideScope with the Macintosh laryngoscope for tracheal intubation in patients with simulated difficult airway. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2005;33:243–7
67. Malik MA, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Comparison of Macintosh, Truview EVO2, Glidescope, and Airwayscope laryngoscope use in patients with cervical spine immobilization. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:723–30
68. Malik MA, Subramaniam R, Maharaj CH, Harte BH, Laffey JG. Randomized controlled trial of the Pentax AWS, Glidescope, and Macintosh laryngoscopes in predicted difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:761–8
69. Robitaille A, Williams SR, Tremblay MH, Guilbert F, Thériault M, Drolet P. Cervical spine motion during tracheal intubation with manual in-line stabilization: Direct laryngoscopy versus GlideScope videolaryngoscopy. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:935–41
70. Serocki G, Bein B, Scholz J, Dörges V. Management of the predicted difficult airway: A comparison of conventional blade laryngoscopy with video-assisted blade laryngoscopy and the GlideScope. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2010;27:24–30
71. Aziz MF, Healy D, Kheterpal S, Fu RF, Dillman D, Brambrink AM. Routine clinical practice effectiveness of the Glidescope in difficult airway management: An analysis of 2,004 Glidescope intubations, complications, and failures from two institutions. Anesthesiology. 2011;114:34–41
72. Cooper RM. Complications associated with the use of the GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Can J Anaesth. 2007;54:54–7
73. Hirabayashi Y. Pharyngeal injury related to GlideScope videolaryngoscope. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2007;137:175–6
74. Malik AM, Frogel JK. Anterior tonsillar pillar perforation during GlideScope video laryngoscopy. Anesth Analg. 2007;104:1610–1; discussion 1611
75. Vincent RD Jr, Wimberly MP, Brockwell RC, Magnuson JS. Soft palate perforation during orotracheal intubation facilitated by the GlideScope videolaryngoscope. J Clin Anesth. 2007;19:619–21
76. Aro L, Takki S, Aromaa U. Technique for difficult intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1971;43:1081–3
77. Carr RJ, Belani KG. Clinical assessment of the Augustine Guide for endotracheal intubation. Anesth Analg. 1994;78:983–7
78. Kidd JF, Dyson A, Latto IP. Successful difficult intubation. Use of the gum elastic bougie. Anaesthesia. 1988;43:437–8
79. Krafft P, Fitzgerald R, Pernerstorfer T, Kapral S, Weinstabl C. A new device for blind oral intubation in routine and difficult airway management. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 1994;11:207–12
80. MacQuarrie K, Hung OR, Law JA. Tracheal intubation using Bullard laryngoscope for patients with a simulated difficult airway. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:760–5
81. Rao TL, Mathru M, Gorski DW, Salem MR. Experience with a new intubation guide for difficult tracheal intubation. Crit Care Med. 1982;10:882–3
82. deLima LG, Bishop MJ. Lung laceration after tracheal extubation over a plastic tube changer. Anesth Analg. 1991;73:350–1
83. Fetterman D, Dubovoy A, Reay M. Unforeseen esophageal misplacement of airway exchange catheter leading to gastric perforation. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:1111–2
84. Augoustides JG, Groff BE, Mann DG, Johansson JS. Difficult airway management after carotid endarterectomy: Utility and limitations of the Laryngeal Mask Airway. J Clin Anesth. 2007;19:218–21
85. Fundingsland BW, Benumof JL. Difficulty using a laryngeal mask airway in a patient with lingual tonsil hyperplasia. Anesthesiology. 1996;84:1265–6
86. Kidani DC, Shah NK. The use of a laryngeal mask airway after a prolonged suspension laryngoscopy to preserve a vocal cord fat graft. Anesth Analg. 2007;105:1753–4
87. Mizushima A, Wardall GJ, Simpson DL. The laryngeal mask airway in infants. Anaesthesia. 1992;47:849–51
88. Rowbottom SJ, Simpson DL, Grubb D. The laryngeal mask airway in children. A fibreoptic assessment of positioning. Anaesthesia. 1991;46:489–91
89. 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
90. Allen JG, Flower EA. The Brain laryngeal mask. An alternative to difficult intubation. Br Dent J. 1990;168:202–4
91. Asai T, Fujise K, Uchida M. Use of the laryngeal mask in a child with tracheal stenosis. Anesthesiology. 1991;75:903–4
92. Beveridge ME. Laryngeal mask anaesthesia for repair of cleft palate. Anaesthesia. 1989;44:656–7
93. Nagai K, Sakuramoto C, Goto F. Unilateral hypoglossal nerve paralysis following the use of the laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 1994;49:603–4
94. Winterhalter M, Kirchhoff K, Gröschel W, Lüllwitz E, Heermann R, Hoy L, Heine J, Hagberg C, Piepenbrock S. The laryngeal tube for difficult airway management: A prospective investigation in patients with pharyngeal and laryngeal tumours. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2005;22:678–82
95. Frappier J, Guenoun T, Journois D, Philippe H, Aka E, Cadi P, Silleran-Chassany J, Safran D. Airway management using the intubating laryngeal mask airway for the morbidly obese patient. Anesth Analg. 2003;96:1510–5
96. Fukutome T, Amaha K, Nakazawa K, Kawamura T, Noguchi H. Tracheal intubation through the intubating laryngeal mask airway (LMA-Fastrach) in patients with difficult airways. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1998;26:387–91
97. Kapila A, Addy EV, Verghese C, Brain AI. The intubating laryngeal mask airway: An initial assessment of performance. Br J Anaesth. 1997;79:710–3
98. Kihara S, Watanabe S, Brimacombe J, Taguchi N, Yaguchi Y, Yamasaki Y. Segmental cervical spine movement with the intubating laryngeal mask during manual in-line stabilization in patients with cervical pathology undergoing cervical spine surgery. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:195–200
99. Nakazawa K, Tanaka N, Ishikawa S, Ohmi S, Ueki M, Saitoh Y, Makita K, Amaha K. Using the intubating laryngeal mask airway (LMA-Fastrach) for blind endotracheal intubation in patients undergoing cervical spine operation. Anesth Analg. 1999;89:1319–21
100. Shung J, Avidan MS, Ing R, Klein DC, Pott L. Awake intubation of the difficult airway with the intubating laryngeal mask airway. Anaesthesia. 1998;53:645–9
101. Wakeling HG, Nightingale J. The intubating laryngeal mask airway does not facilitate tracheal intubation in the presence of a neck collar in simulated trauma. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:254–6
102. Asai T, Eguchi Y, Murao K, Niitsu T, Shingu K. Intubating laryngeal mask for fibreoptic intubation–particularly useful during neck stabilization. Can J Anaesth. 2000;47:843–8
103. Bhatnagar S, Mishra S, Jha RR, Singhal AK, Bhatnagar N. The LMA Fastrach facilitates fibreoptic intubation in oral cancer patients. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:641–5
104. Bellhouse CP. An angulated laryngoscope for routine and difficult tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 1988;69:126–9
105. Gabbott DA. Laryngoscopy using the McCoy laryngoscope after application of a cervical collar. Anaesthesia. 1996;51:812–4
106. Blanco G, Melman E, Cuairan V, Moyao D, Ortiz-Monasterio F. Fibreoptic nasal intubation in children with anticipated and unanticipated difficult intubation. Paediatr Anaesth. 2001;11:49–53
107. Borland LM, Casselbrant M. The Bullard laryngoscope. A new indirect oral laryngoscope (pediatric version). Anesth Analg. 1990;70:105–8
108. Delaney KA, Hessler R. Emergency flexible fiberoptic nasotracheal intubation: A report of 60 cases. Ann Emerg Med. 1988;17:919–26
109. Fuchs G, Schwarz G, Baumgartner A, Kaltenböck F, Voit-Augustin H, Planinz W. Fiberoptic intubation in 327 neurosurgical patients with lesions of the cervical spine. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 1999;11:11–6
110. Hakala P, Randell T, Valli H. Laryngoscopy and fibreoptic intubation in acromegalic patients. Br J Anaesth. 1998;80:345–7
111. Larson SM, Parks DH. Managing the difficult airway in patients with burns of the head and neck. J Burn Care Rehabil. 1988;9:55–6
112. Ovassapian A, Krejcie TC, Yelich SJ, Dykes MH. Awake fibreoptic intubation in the patient at high risk of aspiration. Br J Anaesth. 1989;62:13–6
113. Reasoner DK, Warner DS, Todd MM, Hunt SW, Kirchner J. A comparison of anesthetic techniques for awake intubation in neurosurgical patients. J Neurosurg Anesth. 1995;7:94–9
114. Rogers SN, Benumof JL. New and easy techniques for fiberoptic endoscopy-aided tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 1983;59:569–72
115. Sidhu V, Whitehead E, Ainsworth Q, Smith M, Calder I. A technique of awake fibreoptic intubation: Experience in patients with cervical spine disesae. Anaesthesia. 1993;48:910–3
116. Smith M, Calder I, Crockard A, Isert P, Nicol ME. Oxygen saturation and cardiovascular changes during fibreoptic intubation under general anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 1992;47:158–61
117. Takenaka I, Aoyama K, Kadoya T, Sata T, Shigematsu A. Fibreoptic assessment of laryngeal aperture in patients with difficult laryngoscopy. Can J Anaesth. 1999;46:226–31
118. Fridrich P, Frass M, Krenn CG, Weinstabl C, Benumof JL, Krafft P. The UpsherScope in routine and difficult airway management: A randomized, controlled clinical trial. Anesth Analg. 1997;85:1377–81
119. Smith CE, Pinchak AB, Sidhu TS, Radesic BP, Pinchak AC, Hagen JF. Evaluation of tracheal intubation difficulty in patients with cervical spine immobilization: Fiberoptic (WuScope) versus conventional laryngoscopy. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:1253–9
120. Watts AD, Gelb AW, Bach DB, Pelz DM. Comparison of the Bullard and Macintosh laryngoscopes for endotracheal intubation of patients with a potential cervical spine injury. Anesthesiology. 1997;87:1335–42
121. Ainsworth QP, Howells TH. Transilluminated tracheal intubation. Br J Anaesth. 1989;62:494–7
122. Dimitriou V, Voyagis GS, Brimacombe JR. Flexible lightwand-guided tracheal intubation with the intubating laryngeal mask Fastrach in adults after unpredicted failed laryngoscope-guided tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:296–9
123. Holzman RS, Nargozian CD, Florence FB. Lightwand intubation in children with abnormal upper airways. Anesthesiology. 1988;69:784–7
124. Hung OR, Pytka S, Morris I, Murphy M, Stewart RD. Lightwand intubation: II–Clinical trial of a new lightwand for tracheal intubation in patients with difficult airways. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:826–30
125. Weis FR, Hatton MN. Intubation by use of the light wand: Experience in 253 patients. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1989;47:577–80; discussion 581
126. Berns SD, Patel RI, Chamberlain JM. Oral intubation using a lighted stylet vs direct laryngoscopy in older children with cervical immobilization. Acad Emerg Med. 1996;3:34–40
127. Rhee KY, Lee JR, Kim J, Park S, Kwon WK, Han S. A comparison of lighted stylet (Surch-Lite) and direct laryngoscopic intubation in patients with high Mallampati scores. Anesth Analg. 2009;108:1215–9
128. Dohi S, Inomata S, Tanaka M, Ishizawa Y, Matsumiya N. End-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring during awake blind nasotracheal intubation. J Clin Anesth. 1990;2:415–9
129. Spencer RF, Rathmell JP, Viscomi CM. A new method for difficult endotracheal intubation: the use of a jet stylet introducer and capnography. Anesth Analg. 1995;81:1079–83
130. Williamson JA, Webb RK, Szekely S, Gillies ER, Dreosti AV. The Australian Incident Monitoring Study. Difficult intubation: An analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesth Intensive Care. 1993;21:602–7
© 2013 American Society of Anesthesiologists, Inc.
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿