Correspondence  |   December 2004
Is It the Validation or Invalidation of the Airway Management Algorithm?
Author Notes
  • Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Article Information
Correspondence   |   December 2004
Is It the Validation or Invalidation of the Airway Management Algorithm?
Anesthesiology 12 2004, Vol.101, 1484. doi:
Anesthesiology 12 2004, Vol.101, 1484. doi:
To the Editor:—
The authors must be congratulated for undertaking the study attempting to answer the question of protocol-based airway management in the event of unanticipated difficult intubation.1 However, this raises some serious questions about the content and conclusions of the study.
First, we are unclear as to how the investigators have concluded that their local protocol-based approach to airway management in the event of unanticipated difficult intubation after induction is efficacious. In an 18-month interval, 100 patients who were anticipated to be easy to intubate on preoperative work-up were subsequently found to be difficult to intubate. Sixteen percent of these patients suffered severe hypoxemia. Although the authors have not provided any data regarding the incidence of hypoxemia at induction among the true positive participants, it is unlikely that the incidence in that population could be as high as 16%. One patient suffered significant dental trauma and one ended up aspirating gastric contents. In addition, 89 patients were subjected to multiple attempts at direct laryngoscopy. The authors fail to acknowledge that these adverse events could very well been the result of the sticking with the proposed airway algorithm. It appears that most of the patients suffered hypoxemia as a result of multiple attempts at laryngoscopy. Hypoxemia, as we understand, is a clear sign of ventilatory failure under these situations unless it is attributable to other causes. Failure to keep a substantial number of patients oxygenated highlights the inefficiency of the proposed algorithm. Unless the study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway  ™ (LMA North America, Inc., San Diego, CA) as a tool for rescue ventilation, the conclusion that 100 percent of the patients were successfully ventilated underestimates the significant problems at ventilation encountered by the anesthesiologists while following the algorithm.
We are also unclear on what basis the authors claim that the study has validated the local protocol-based approach to airway management. The study has neither the design nor the power to answer this question, as we do not know what would happen if the anesthesiologist were not restricted by the protocol to the use of direct laryngoscopy, gum elastic bougie, Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway  ™, or the transtracheal jet ventilation. Whether anticipated or unanticipated, the approach to airway management in the event of failed intubation at induction depends on multiple factors. The result of preliminary laryngoscopy, the view of the glottis, the primary reason for intubation failure (is it the poor laryngoscopic view or the failure to pass the tube?), ease of ventilation with the mask, the muscle relaxant used, emergency or elective surgery, state of oxygenation of the patient, presence or absence of risk factors for aspiration, the condition of upper dentition, and, above all, the skill and expertise of the anesthesiologist all must be taken into account before defining the next step. A protocol-based approach like the one proposed by the investigators may limit anesthesia providers from applying individual problem-based solutions in the event of inadvertent difficult intubation. The end result: the patient with the poor dentition suffers dental trauma, the patient with full stomach may wind up aspirating gastric contents; failure of the Intubating Laryngeal Mask Airway  ™ regardless of the cause (morbid obesity/limited mouth opening) commits the anesthesia provider to expose the patient to the risk of transtracheal jet ventilation although switching to simple a laryngeal mask airway or laryngeal tube might have solved that problem. A broad-based protocol that incorporates all the fundamental goals and objectives of airway management, e.g.  , the American Society of Anesthesiologists airway protocol, allowing for stepwise evaluation based interventions while taking into account factors specific to operator skill and experience, available resources, and patient continues to be the most prudent approach to management of inadvertent difficult intubation.2 
Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Saint Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri.
Combes X, Le Roux B, Suen P, Dumerat M, Motamed C, Sauvat S, Duvaldestin P, Dhonneur G: Unanticipated difficult airway in anesthetized patients: Prospective validation of a management algorithm. Anesthesiology 2004; 100:1146–50Combes, X Le Roux, B Suen, P Dumerat, M Motamed, C Sauvat, S Duvaldestin, P Dhonneur, G
Benumof JL: Laryngeal mask airway and the ASA difficult airway algorithm. Anesthesiology 1996; 84:686–99Benumof, JL