Abstract
Objectives
To evaluate the first‐attempt success rates and complications of endotracheal intubation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients by emergency physicians.
Methods
This prospective observational study was conducted from March 24, 2020 through May 28, 2020 at the emergency department (ED) of an urban, academic trauma center. We enrolled patients consecutively admitted to the ED with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 submitted to endotracheal intubation. No patients were excluded. The primary outcome was first‐attempt intubation success, defined as successful endotracheal tube placement with the first device passed (endotracheal tube) during the first laryngoscope insertion confirmed with capnography. Secondary outcomes included the following complications: hypotension, hypoxemia, aspiration, and esophageal intubation.
Results
A total of 112 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID‐19 were enrolled. Median age was 61 years and 61 patients (54%) were men. The primary outcome, first‐attempt intubation success, was achieved in 82% of patients. Among the 20 patients who were not intubated on the first attempt, 75% were intubated on the second attempt and 20% on the third attempt; cricothyrotomy was performed in 1 patient. Forty‐eight (42%) patients were hypotensive and required norepinephrine immediately post‐intubation. Fifty‐eight (52%) experienced peri‐intubation hypoxemia, and 2 patients (2%) had cardiac arrest. There were no cases of failed intubation resulting in death up to 24 hours after the procedure.
Conclusion
Emergency physicians achieve high success rates when intubating COVID19 patients, although complications are frequent. However, these findings should be considered provisional until their generalizability is assessed in their institutions and setting.
Keywords: COVID‐19, emergency physician, intubation
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background
Patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) may become critically ill with acute respiratory distress syndrome. 1 Deciding when a patient with severe COVID‐19 should receive endotracheal intubation is an essential component of care. 1 As the COVID‐19 pandemic spreads across the world, teams must develop airway management strategies that protect both patients and staff. 2 In many settings, emergency physicians are responsible for airway management of acutely ill COVID‐19 patients presenting to the emergency department. 3
Emergency intubation of critically ill patients carries complication rates of over 40% in some series. 4 An alarmingly high percentage of patients suffer an associated cardiac arrest. 5 , 6 Numerous factors may contribute to this, including hypoxemia and arterial hypotension before intubation. 6 The current scientific literature reports on the additional difficulties that COVID‐19 represents to securing the airway. Among the difficulties are performing the procedure using full personal protective equipment and reports of rapidly desaturating patients. Unfortunately, early data suggest high mortality in this subset of patients. 7
1.2. Importance
ED intubation techniques for critically ill patients are largely extrapolated from operating room practice. 4 Despite insufficient or no data for many aspects, there are important differences between elective non‐COVID‐19 and emergency COVID‐19 intubation, such as the risk to the patient of aspiration, desaturation, or hypotension and the risk of difficult laryngoscopy to medical personnel, who should wear personal protective equipment including an N95 respirator, goggles, and plastic face shields. 4 , 7
1.3. Goals of this investigation
The objective of this study was to evaluate the first‐attempt success rates and complications of endotracheal intubation of COVID‐19 patients by emergency physicians.
2. METHODS
2.1. Study design and setting
This prospective observational study was conducted from March 24, 2020 through May 28, 2020 at the ED of Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. It is a quaternary academic medical center with 2200 beds with 5 buildings and 2 auxiliary hospitals. During the pandemic, it has been designated by the state government to be the center for severe and moderate cases of COVID‐19.
All endotracheal intubations are performed by either emergency medicine residents (usually postgraduate year 2 or higher) or attending physicians. This protocol was approved by the local ethics committee under the number 3.990.817 (CAAE: 30417520.0.0000.0068) that waived the need for written informed consent. We adhered to the STROBE guidelines.
2.2. Selection of participants
We enrolled patients consecutively admitted to the ED with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 submitted to endotracheal intubation. We considered patients with compatible clinical and computed tomography findings suspect for COVID‐19. We either confirmed COVID‐19 with nasopharyngeal or tracheal secretion reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT‐PCR). We used a Macintosh laryngoscope blade, either direct or videolaryngoscopy. No patients were excluded.
2.3. Exposures
Our preoxygenation strategy consisted mainly of 5 minutes of tidal volume breathing of 100% oxygen with a tightly fitted nonrebreather (NRB) mask or manual bag‐valve‐mask ventilation at a 15 L/minute rate with the patient upright. If the patient remained hypoxemic (<93%), a non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) mask connected to an in‐line high‐efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter and a closed dual‐limb ventilator circuit were used. Positive pressure preoxygenation was maintained until the patient was apneic. The ventilator was shut down just before removing the mask to reduce aerosolization. All patients were intubated with SpO2 >93% after preoxygenation. Also, to reduce aerosolization, we avoided the nasal cannula for apneic oxygenation.
We used wave capnography to confirm all intubations. If the initial intubation attempt was unsuccessful, we used a supraglottic airway fitted with a HEPA filter, connected directly to a ventilator, or bag‐valve mask, for rescue ventilation in all cases.
2.4. Outcomes
The primary outcome was first‐attempt intubation success, defined as successful endotracheal tube placement with the first device passed (endotracheal tube) during the first laryngoscope insertion confirmed with capnography. If the endotracheal tube was not inserted into the mouth during the first laryngoscope insertion, the attempt was counted as a failure.
Secondary outcomes included the following complications: hypotension, hypoxemia, aspiration, and esophageal intubation. Hypotension was defined by a decrease of 30 mmHg or more in systolic blood pressure or a mean arterial pressure (MAP) <65 mmHg after the procedure. Hypoxemia was defined as an oxyhemoglobin saturation <90%.
2.5. Analysis
Unplanned subgroup analyses were performed for variables of clinical interest. These analyses were exploratory in nature, and a test of interaction for each subgroup was performed. Missing data were left as such; imputation was not performed.
We used the 2‐tailed Student's t test and Kruskal‐Wallis test for parametric and non‐parametric values, respectively. Data were analyzed using were in Stata 13 software (College Station, Texas, USA).
3. RESULTS
3.1. Characteristics of study subjects
A total of 112 patients with confirmed or suspected COVID‐19 were enrolled. From these, 99 patients (88%) had confirmed (RT‐PCR) COVID‐19, and 13 (12%) had clinical diagnoses. In these cases, symptoms, exposures, and presence of lung imaging features consistent with COVID‐19 pneumonia.
The Bottom Line
Intubation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patients is difficult because of the need to minimize pathogen exposure and spread. The course and outcomes of emergency department COVID‐19 intubation are unknown. In this series of 112 COVID‐19 ED intubations in Brazil, first‐pass success was high (82%), but peri‐intubation complications such as hypotension (42%) and hypoxemia (52%) were common. Clinicians should anticipate complications when intubating COVID‐19 patients.
Median age was 61 years; 61 patients (54%) were men. The procedures were performed by 30 emergency physicians. The main indication for intubation was hypoxemia (98%); only 2 patients (2%) were intubated for decreased level of consciousness. Indications for intubation (Table 1) and procedural details (Table 2) are displayed in the tables.
TABLE 1.
Baseline characteristics of patients intubated in the emergency department
| Characteristic | No. (%) (n = 112) |
|---|---|
| Age, mean (years), IQR | 61 (50–69) |
| Male sex | 61 (54%) |
| Heart rate, mean (bpm), IQR | 100 (90–110) |
| Systolic blood pressure, mean (mmHg), IQR | 127 (112–140) |
| Shock index, mean, IQR | 0.79 (0.68–0.94) |
| Shock index >0.90, (%) | 33 (29%) |
| Respiratory rate, mean (breaths/minutes), IQR | 36 (30–40) |
| Received supplemental oxygen, (%) | 112 (100%) |
| Nasal canula 6L/minutes | 15 (14%) |
| Venturi mask 50% | 3 (3%) |
| High‐flow nasal oxygen 60L/minutes | 4 (3%) |
| Non‐rebreathing mask 15L | 73 (65%) |
| Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation 100% | 17 (15%) |
| Oxygen saturation, median (%), IQR | 89% (84%–92%) |
| Indication for intubation | |
| Hypoxemia | 110 (98%) |
| Altered mental status | 2 (2%) |
IQR, interquartile range
TABLE 2.
Intubation process measures among patients admitted to the emergency department
| Measure | No. (%) (n = 112) |
|---|---|
| Method | |
| Rapid sequence intubation | 108 (96%) |
| Delayed sequence intubation | 4 (3%) |
| Cricothyroidotomy | 1 (<1%) |
| Preoxygenation | 112 (100%) |
| Non‐rebreather mask | 28 (25%) |
| Bag‐valve mask | 12 (11%) |
| Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation | 72 (64%) |
| Pretreatment | |
| Fentanyl 100 µg | 16 (14%) |
| Lidocaine 1.5 mg/kg | 12 (10%) |
| Sedative before intubation, (%) | |
| Etomidate 0.3 mg/kg | 8 (25%) |
| Ketamine 1.5 mg/kg | 81 (72%) |
| Neuromuscular blockade before intubation, (%) | 112 (100%) |
| Succinylcholine 1.5 mg/kg | 68 (61%) |
| Rocuronium 1.2 mg/kg | 44 (39%) |
| Oxygen saturation at start of first intubation attempt (%) | |
| >93% | 112 (100%) |
| Operator experience | |
| Emergency medicine senior resident (postgraduate year 3) or attending physician | 73 (65%) |
| Emergency medicine junior resident (postgraduate year 2 or below) | 39 (35%) |
| Laryngoscopy method | |
| McGrath videolaryngoscope | 62 (55%) |
| Macintosh direct laryngoscope | 50 (45%) |
| Bougie used in first attempt | 45 (40%) |
Sedation followed by neuromuscular blockade was performed in all patients before intubation. The preferred sedatives were ketamine (72%) and etomidate (25%), succinylcholine was used for neuromuscular blockade (61%). Pretreatment with fentanyl was used in only 14% of indicated cases. Table 1 shows drug doses. We performed rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in 96% of patients, modified RSI (delayed sequence intubation) in 3%, and 1 patient was submitted to a cricothyroidotomy.
The mean PaO2/FiO2 immediately after intubation was 107. Fifty‐nine percent of patients required continuous neuromuscular blockade and 5% prone positioning while still in the ED.
3.2. Main results
The primary outcome, first‐attempt intubation success, was achieved in 82% of patients. Among the 20 patients who were not intubated on the first attempt, 75% were intubated on the second attempt and 20% on the third attempt; cricothyrotomy was performed in 1 patient. The first attempt success rate was 85% in senior and 76% in junior physicians (P = 0.5). These subsequent rescue attempts used a bougie or laryngeal mask or were performed with the most experienced emergency physician available. Table 3 describes primary and secondary outcomes.
TABLE 3.
Outcomes among patients intubated in the emergency department
| Outcome | No. with event/Total no. patients |
|---|---|
| Primary outcome | |
| First‐attempt intubation success | 92 (82%) |
| Secondary outcome | |
| Any complications | 83 (74%) |
| >2 intubation attempts | 4 (3%) |
| Hypotension | 48 (42%) |
| Peri‐intubation hypoxemia | 58 (52%) |
| Esophageal intubation | 3 (2%) |
| Cardiac arrest | 2 (1%) |
| PaO2/FiO2 post‐intubation, mean, interquartile range | 107 (66;125) |
| Continuous neuromuscular blockade immediately after intubation | 66 (59%) |
| Prone position immediately in ED | 6 (5%) |
Forty‐eight (42%) patients were hypotensive and required vasopressors (norepinephrine) immediately post‐intubation. Fifty‐eight (52%) experienced peri‐intubation hypoxemia, and 3 patients had an esophageal intubation. Two patients (2%) had cardiac arrest, both after esophageal intubation. Return of spontaneous circulation was obtained after successful intubation. There were no cases of failed intubation resulting in death up to 24 hours after the procedure. No aspiration was reported. (Table 4)
TABLE 4.
Efficacy and outcomes
| First ‐Attempt | >1 intubation attempts | P | Hypotension | No Hypotension | P | Hypoxemia | No Hypoxemia | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (y) ± SD | 60 ± 1.6 | 56 ± 3.0 | 0.32 | 63 ± 2.3 | 56 ± 1.7 | 0,03 | 58 ± 1.9 | 61 ± 2.2 | 0.26 |
| Operator | |||||||||
| Emergency medicine senior resident (postgraduate year 3) or attending physician | 65% | 68% | 0.75 | 66% | 64% | 0.77 | 72% | 57% | 0.09 |
| Emergency medicine junior resident (postgraduate year 2 or below) | 35% | 32% | 33% | 35% | 43% | 28% | |||
| Heart rate (bpm)) ± SD | 101 ± 1.8 | 102 ± 4.8 | 0.95 | 100 ± 2.9 | 102 ± 2.1 | 0.76 | 101 ± 2.4 | 101 ± 18.1 | 0.84 |
| Systolic blood pressure prior intubation ± SD | 129 ± 2.5 | 130 ± 6.4 | 0.81 | 124 ± 3.9 | 133 ± 2.8 | 0.05 | 129 ± 3.5 | 130 ± 3.1 | 0.85 |
| Shock index >0.90 | 0.81 | 0.81 | 0.97 | 0.8 | 0.78 | 0.06 | 0.81 | 0.80 | 0.83 |
| Respiratory rate (bpm) ± SD | 35 ± 0.9 | 38 ± 1.5 | 0.22 | 34 ± 1.1 | 36 ± 1.1 | 0.25 | 36 ± 1.1 | 35 ± 1.2 | 0.68 |
| Preoxygenation | |||||||||
| Nasal canula | 14% | 10% | 0.87 | 8% | 17% | 0.25 | 22% | 5% | 0.01 |
| High‐flow nasal oxygen | 3.2% | 5.3% | 4.2% | 3.1% | 2% | 5% | |||
| Non‐rebreather mask | 62.4% | 73.7% | 64% | 64% | 61% | 67% | |||
| Venturi mask | 3.2% | 0% | 0% | 6.3% | 6% | 0% | |||
| Non‐invasive positive pressure ventilation | 16.1% | 10.5% | 14% | 16% | 9% | 21% | |||
| Fentanyl used | 8% | 16% | 0.25 | 8% | 9% | 0.84 | 8% | 9% | 0.9 |
| Bougie used | 40% | 63% | 0.06 | 43% | 43% | 1 | 37% | 50% | 0,19 |
| Videolaryngoscopy used | 59% | 37% | 0.07 | 58% | 53% | 0.58 | 60% | 50% | 0,27 |
| FiO2 post‐intubation ± SD | 79 ± 2.4 | 88 ± 3.9 | 0.13 | 81 ± 3.0 | 80 ± 3.1 | 0.94 | 87 ± 2.3 | 73 ± 3.5 | 0.003 |
| PaO2/FiO2 post‐intubation | 110 ± 6.7 | 89 ± 8.1 | 0.16 | 99 ± 7.0 | 113 ± 8.8 | 0.33 | 97 ± 7.4 | 119 ± 9.0 | 0.01 |
4. LIMITATIONS
This study has several limitations. First, as data were obtained at a single institution, findings may not be generalizable. Second, interpretation of the results of this study is limited by the small size of the cohort, the relatively short duration of follow‐up, and potential missing data owing to the nature of the program, Third, there was no standardized approach to emergency intubation among attending physicians. Forth, studies show that videolaryngoscopy increases the rate of first attempt intubation in the ED; 8 however, in our study, use of the videolaryngoscope was not associated with first‐attempt intubation. We believe this may have occurred because the device was first acquired during the COVID‐19 pandemic and the ED staff did not have enough practice, with team members still on the learning curve.
5. DISCUSSION
We report a cohort of 112 patients with laboratory‐confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection or suspicion of COVID‐19 (due to compatible clinical and radiological findings) who needed emergency intubation and analyzed success rates for first‐attempt intubation by emergency physicians, as well as complications.
The success rate for orotracheal intubation by emergency physicians was 82% on the first attempt, whereas the overall success rate was 99%. This is consistent with the findings of the National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR II), a multicenter airway registry based in the United States. The NEAR II first‐attempt success rate was 81% of cases, 9 showing no difference to our COVID‐19 series. The success rate for emergency orotracheal intubation of patients with COVID‐19 by anesthesiologists in China was 89% on first attempt and 100% overall. 10
A striking feature of COVID‐19 is the rapid progression of respiratory failure soon after the onset of dyspnea and hypoxemia. 1 As expected, the main indication for endotracheal intubation in our cohort was hypoxemia (98%). Only 2 patients, diagnosed with both COVID‐19 and an acute stroke, were intubated because of decreased level of consciousness.
Guidelines from the Difficult Airway Society recommends that intubation should be performed after preoxygenation and RSI. 11 In this study, the main intubation method was RSI (96%). However, 4 patients were intubated with a delayed sequence because of psychomotor agitation, and 1 patient required cricothyroidotomy. The preferred sedatives ketamine and etomidate, and succinylcholine for neuromuscular blockade, were already the drugs of choice at our facility before the COVID‐19 pandemic.
We had a complication rate of 74%. The current scientific literature reports that patients with COVID‐19 often become hypotensive soon after intubation owing to positive‐pressure ventilation and systemic vasodilation from sedatives. 1 , 11 In our study, hypotension occurred in 42% patients. Despite previous reports of the usefulness of the shock index (SI) ≥ 0.9 in predicting hypotension, in this series of COVID‐19 patients the SI was not a reliable predictor of hypotension after procedure. The mean SI in hypotensive patients after intubation was 0.78 prior to procedure. No patient had systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg before the passage of the orotracheal tube.
Hypoxemia occurred in 52% patients. Patients who experienced hypoxemia received non‐invasive ventilation and had a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio post‐intubation, which suggests that the indication for intubation was established late, with greater pulmonary impairment.
Three patients (2%) had esophageal intubation. In the first case, performed under direct laryngoscopy, this was rapidly identified because of the absence of a capnography curve; a laryngeal mask was passed, the patient was ventilated, and the second attempt at intubation was successful. In the second and third cases, performed via videolaryngoscopy, the bougie passed through the vocal cords, but resistance was encountered when passing the tube over the tube introducer, presumably from the tip catching on the arytenoid cartilages. The bougie was inadvertently removed, patients desaturated and went into cardiorespiratory arrest, which was reversed after a second attempt at orotracheal intubation.
In conclusion, first‐attempt intubation success was obtained in 82% of patients. Emergency intubation of COVID‐19 patients is associated with a high risk of complications. Most complications occurred when the airway was managed by trainees or less experienced physicians. However, these findings should be considered provisional until their generalizability is assessed in other institutions and settings.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
Bruno Marques, Julio Cesar Garcia de Alencar and Julio Flavio Meirelles Marchini contributed equally to this work. Bruno Marques, Julio Cesar Garcia de Alencar, Julio Flavio Meirelles Marchini, Cauê Gasparotto Bueno, Victor Paro da Cunha, Felippe Lazar Neto, Rodrigo Antonio Brandão Neto, Lucas Oliveira Marino, and Heraldo Possolo Souza wrote the manuscript. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis, and manuscript. COVID USP Registry Team did the Registry
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Felipe Liger Moreira, MD1, Luz Marina Gomez Gomez, PDH1, Edwin Albert D'Souza*1, Arthur Petrillo Bellintani*1, Rodrigo Cezar Miléo*1, Rodrigo Werner Toccoli*1, Fernanda Máximo Fonseca e Silva*1, João Martelleto Baptista*1, Marcelo de Oliveira Silva*1, Giovanna Babikian Costa*1, Rafael Berenguer Luna*1, Henrique Tibucheski dos Santos*1, Mariana Mendes Gonçalves Cimatti De Calasans*1, Marcelo Petrof Sanches*1, Diego Juniti Takamune*1, Luiza Boscolo*1, Pedro Antonio Araújo Simões*1, Manuela Cristina Adsuara Pandolfi*1, Beatriz Larios Fantinatti*1, Gabriel Travessini*1, Matheus Finardi Lima de Faria*1, Ligia Trombetta Lima*1, Bianca Ruiz Nicolao*1, Gabriel de Paula Maroni Escudeiro*1, João Pedro Afonso Nascimento*1, Everton Luis Santos Moreira*1, Erika Thiemy Brito Miyaguchi *1, Bruna Tolentino Caldeira*1, Laura de Góes Campos*1, Vitor Macedo Brito Medeiros*1, Tales Cabral Monsalvarga*1, Isabela Harumi Omori*1, Diogo Visconti Guidotte*1, Alexandre Lemos Bortolotto*1, Rodrigo de Souza Abreu*1, Nilo Arthur Bezerra Martins*1, Carlos Eduardo Umehara Juck*1, Felipe Mouzo Bortoleto, MD1, Gabriel Martinez, MD1, Lucas Gonçalves Dias Barreto, MD1, Debora Lopes Emerenciano, MD1, Daniel Rodrigues Ribeiro, MD1, Danilo Dias de Francesco, MD1, Eduardo Mariani Pires de Campos, MD1, Stefany Franhan Barbosa de Souza, MD1, Geovane Wiebelling da Silva, MD1, Andrew Araujo Tavares, MD1, Clara Carvalho de Alves Pereira, MD1, Ademar Lima Simões, MD1, Gustavo Biz Martins, MD1, Maria Lorraine Silva de Rosa, MD1, Thiago Areas Lisboa Netto, MD1, Julio Cesar Leite Fortes, MD1, Rafael Faria Pisciolaro, MD1, Mauricio Ursoline do Nascimento, MD1, Rodolfo Affonso Xavier, MD1, Yago Henrique Padovan Chio, MD1, Patricia Albuquerque de Moura, BS1, Emily Cristine Oliveira Silva, BS1, Ester Minã Gomes da Silva, BS1, Yasmine Souza Filippo Fernandes, BS1, Renata Kan Nishiaka, BS1,
* Medical Student
1Emergency Department, Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo
Biography
Julio Cesar Garcia de Alencar, MD, is an Attending Physician in the Emergency Department at Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo.
de Alencar JCG, Marques B, Marchini JFM, et al. First‐attempt intubation success and complications in patients with COVID‐19 undergoing emergency intubation. JACEP Open. 2020;1:699–705. 10.1002/emp2.12219
This study was supported by Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP), grants # 2020/04.738‐8 and #2016/14.566‐4
Funding and support: By JACEP Open policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org). The authors have stated that no such relationships exist.
Supervising Editor: Nicholas Johnson, MD.
REFERENCES
- 1. Berlin DA, Gulick RM, Martinez FJ. Severe COVID‐19. New Engl J Med. 2020. Published online May 15, 2020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Brown CA, Mosier JM, Carlson JN, et al. Pragmatic recommendations for intubating critically ill patients with suspected COVID‐19. JACEP Open. 2020;1(2):80‐84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Bernhard M, Bax SN, Hartwig T, et al. Airway management in the emergency department (The OcEAN‐Study) ‐ a prospective single centre observational cohort study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2019;27:20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Mosier JM, Sakles JC, Law JA, et al. Tracheal intubation in the critically ill. Where we came from and where we should go. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201(7):775‐788. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. De Jong A, Rolle A, Molinari N, et al. Cardiac arrest and mortality related to intubation procedure in critically ill adult patients: a multicenter cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:532‐539. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Heffner AC, Swords DS, Neale MN, et al. Incidence and factors associated with cardiac arrest complicating emergency airway management. Resuscitation. 2013;84:1500‐1504. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Richardson S, Hirsch JS, Narasimhan M, et al. Presenting characteristics, comorbidities, and outcomes among 5700 patients hospitalized with COVID‐19 in the New York City area. JAMA. 2020;;323(20)::2052‐2059. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Brown CA, Kaji AH, Fantegrossi A. Video laryngoscopy compared to augmented direct laryngoscopy in adult emergency department tracheal intubations: a National Emergency Airway Registry (NEAR) Study. Acad Emerg Med. 2020;27(2):100‐108. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Walls RM, Brown CA, Bair AE, et al. NEAR II Investigators. emergency airway management: a multi‐center report of 8937 emergency department intubations. J Emerg Med. 2011;41(4):347‐354. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Yao W, Wang T, Jiang B, et al. Emergency tracheal intubation in 202 patients with COVID‐19 in Wuhan, China: lessons learnt and international expert recommendations. Br J Anaesth. 2020;125(1):e28‐e37. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Cook TM, El‐Boghdadly K, McGuire B, McNarry AF, Patel A, Higgs A. Consensus guidelines for managing the airway in patients with COVID‐19: guidelines from the difficult airway society, the association of anaesthetists the intensive care society, the faculty of intensive care medicine and the royal college of anaesthetists. Anaesthesia. 2020;75:785‐799. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]