A survey of self-reported use of cricoid pressure amongst Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists: Attitudes and practice. Issue 1 (January 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Mistry, Ravi; Frei, Daniel R; Badenhorst, Chris; Broadbent, James
• Is Part Of: Anaesthesia and intensive care. Volume 49:Issue 1(2021)
• Page Start: 62
• Page End: 69
• Publication Date: 2021-01
• Subjects: Anaesthesia -- anaesthetists -- cricoid pressure -- Sellick's manoeuvre -- rapid sequence induction -- regurgitation -- aspiration -- survey -- questionnaire; Anesthesiology -- Periodicals; Intensive Care Units -- Periodicals; 617.96
• DOI: 10.1177/0310057X20968841
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0310-057X

Abstract

We conducted a survey of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists designed to quantify self-reported use of cricoid pressure (CP) in patients presumed to be at risk of gastric regurgitation, and to ascertain the underlying justifications used to support individual practice. We aimed to identify the perceived benefits and harms associated with the use of CP and to explore the potential impact of medicolegal concerns on clinical decision-making. We also sought to ascertain the views of Australian and New Zealand anaesthetists on whether recommendations relating to CP should be included in airway management guidelines. We designed an electronic survey comprised of 15 questions that was emailed to 981 randomly selected Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) by the ANZCA Clinical Trials Network on behalf of the investigators. We received responses from 348 invitees (response rate 35.5%). Of the 348 respondents, 267 (76.9%) indicated that they would routinely use CP for patients determined to be at increased risk of gastric regurgitation. When asked whether participants believed the use of CP reduces the risk of gastric regurgitation, 39.8% indicated yes, 23.8% believed no and 36.3% were unsure. Of the respondents who indicated that they routinely performed CP, 159/267 (60%) indicated that concerns over the potential medicolegal consequences of omitting CP in a patient who subsequently aspirates was one of the main reasons for using CP. The majority (224/337; 66%) of respondents believed that recommendations about the use of CP in airway management guidelines should include individual practitioner judgement, while only 55/337 (16%) respondents believed that routine CP should be advocated in contemporary emergency airway management guidelines.