RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The supraglottic airway device (SGD) was introduced as a breakthrough in airway management. The Fastrach emerged as the first commercially available intubating SGD, drawing extensive investigation. I-gel is a more recent device that has gained popularity, can be used as an intubating SGD, and replaced Fastrach in many institutions. However, there is uncertainty regarding the comparison between these devices in terms of efficacy for intubation and ventilation, and safety in an airway rescue situation. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing I-gel and Fastrach SGD in adult patients undergoing intubation. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes were tracheal intubation time, SGD insertion time and success, and complications. We computed risk ratios (RRs) to assess binary end points and weighted mean differences (WMDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the primary outcome and its subgroup analysis (P < .05 was considered statistically significant) and 99% CI after Bonferroni correction for the secondary outcomes (P < .01 was considered statistically significant). RESULTS: This study included a total of 14 RCTs encompassing 1340 patients. The results indicated a significant difference in the first-pass success rate favoring Fastrach (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67-0.98; P = .03; I² = 91%). In the subgroup analysis, when a flexible scope was utilized through I-gel, providers achieved a better tracheal intubation first-pass success rate (RR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01-1.11; P = .03; I² = 0%), compared with the Fastrach. Overall intubation success rates (RR, 0.92; 99% CI, 0.82-1.04; P = .08, I² = 92%) and time (WMD - 1.03 seconds; 99% CI, -4.75 to 2.69; P = .48; I² = 84%) showed no significant difference irrespective of the device used. There was no significant difference regarding device insertion time by the providers (WMD -6.48 seconds; 99% CI, -13.23 to 0.27; P = .01; I2 = 98%). Success rates of the providers' initial SGD insertion and complications such as sore throat (RR, 1.01; 99% CI, 0.65-1.57; P = .95, I² = 33%) and blood presence post-SGD removal (RR, 0.89; 99% CI, 0.42-1.86; P = .68, I² = 0%) showed no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, a higher first-pass success rate was observed with the use of Fastrach when compared to I-gel. However, the use of I-gel might result in a better intubation success rate with the flexible scope-guided intubation. There are no significant differences in performance in terms of the success rate for intubation overall, time for device insertion, or time to intubation or complications regardless of the device used.
RESUMEN
Introduction: Solid organ transplantation is a lifesaving intervention requiring extensive coordination and communication for timely and safe care. The COVID-19 pandemic posed unique challenges to the safety and management of solid organ transplantation. This descriptive qualitative study aimed to understand how hospital stakeholders were affected by and responded to the COVID-19 pandemic to contribute toward improved healthcare delivery responses and strategies during times of systemic strain on the healthcare system. Methods: One-hour-long semistructured interviews were performed in 3 cohorts: healthcare professionals (N = 6), administrative staff (N = 6), and recipients (N = 4). Interviews were analyzed using conventional thematic content analysis. Thematic saturation was reached within each cohort. Findings: Twelve codes and 6 major themes were identified including the Impact on Clinical Practice, Virtual Healthcare Delivery, Communication, Research, Education and Training, Mental Health and Future Pandemic Planning. Reflecting on these codes and major themes, 4 recommendations were developed (Anticipation and Preparation, Maximizing Existing Resources and Networks, Standardization and the Virtual Environment and Caring for the Staff) to guide transplant programs to optimize healthcare pathways while enhancing the best practices during future pandemics. Conclusion: Transplant programs will benefit from anticipation and preparation procedures using ramping-down strategies, resource planning, and interprofessional collaboration while maximizing existing resources and networks. In parallel, transplant programs should standardize virtual practices and platforms for clinical and educational purposes while maintaining an open culture of mental health discussion and integrating strategies to support staff's mental health.