Cerebral blood flow changes during palpation of external airway structures in healthy volunteers.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies demonstrate increased intracranial pressure (ICP) during direct laryngoscopy in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Worse outcomes in TBI have been associated with increased ICP. It remains unclear if the same effect occurs during cricothyrotomy. We evaluated changes in cerebral blood flow and hemodynamic changes that occurred during preparation for cricothyrotomy in healthy volunteers.
METHODS: An emergency medicine trainee performed routine anatomical procedural palpation with simultaneous transcranial doppler (TCD) measurements of cerebral blood flow velocities (CBFV) from bilateral middle cerebral arteries (MCAs). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded throughout event. Our primary outcome was changes in pulsatility index (PI) and CBFV by TCD during palpation. TCD measurements were used as a surrogate for ICP.
RESULTS: We enrolled 20 healthy volunteers for this study. No significant differences were found in pulsatility index [Right MCA -0.02 (95% confidence interval, -0.09 to 0.06), left MCA -0.02 (95% confidence interval, -0.011 to 0.07)] or mean CBFV [right MCA -0.70 mm/s (95% confidence interval, -10.15 to 8.75) left MCA -1.20 mm/s (95% confidence interval, -10.68 to 8.28)] during palpation. No significant change in HR was found [-1.1 bpm ((95% confidence interval, -2.4 to 0.1)]. A change in MAP was observed [1.3 mmHg (95% confidence interval, -0.1 to 2.4)].
CONCLUSIONS: In healthy individuals, no clinically significant change in cerebral blood flow velocities, ICP, or change heart rate was observed during palpation for cricothyrotomy.

Introduction

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is the most common cause of death for individuals under age 45 in America according to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. [1] In recent years, TBI has become an increasingly prevalent problem facing the United States (US) military. Rates of TBI among service members doubled from 2000 to 2011 due to injury patterns experienced during Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. [2]

Key to the management of severe TBI is prevention of secondary injury. This includes preventing hypoxia and increased intracranial pressure (ICP) which are both independent predictors of poor outcomes in severe TBI. [3-6] Many TBI patients require intubation for the purposes of preventing hypoxia and ensuring airway protection [7-9]. Unfortunately, airway management by direct laryngoscopy can predispose patients to ICP spikes due to manipulation of the oropharynx. [10,11] It is unclear whether the airway manipulation required by alternative airway management techniques causes similar rises in ICP.

Cricothyrotomy is an emergent procedure to cannulate the trachea and is used early in the airway management algorithm under Tactical Combat Casualty Care guidelines [12]. Moreover, most military combat medics are not trained in endotracheal intubation so cricothyrotomy is the primary airway intervention in the setting of anatomical disruptions.

Another potential source of secondary injury in TBI patients aside from hypoxia is increased intracranial pressure. Data suggests an association between increased intracranial pressure and worse outcomes in the setting of TBI. [13] Changes in cerebral blood flow (CBF) can have deleterious effects in TBI patients, even if transient. [4] Previous literature demonstrated that airway manipulation via direct laryngoscopy causes changes in cardiovascular hemodynamics and intracranial pressure which can affect cerebral blood flow [14-16]. It is unclear at this time how airway management via cricothyrotomy affects cerebral blood flow and hemodynamics. In this study we sought to determine the change in CBF during the palpation of neck landmarks in preparation for cricothyrotomy.

Materials and methods

We conducted a prospective observational study of volunteer subjects. The study setting was an patient room in an urban, tertiary-care hospital emergency department (ED). The Brooke Army Medical Center (Regional Health Command-Central) institutional review board reviewed and approved protocol C.2016.089.

We recruited healthy subjects 18 years of age and older for participation. We excluded subjects with a history of increased ICP, abnormal skull or cerebral anatomy precluding the ability to obtain transcranial Doppler (TCD) measurements, and abnormal or altered neck anatomy precluding the ability to palpate the neck as require for the study (i.e. goiter, thyroid surgery, etc). We did not compensate subjects for participation. We provided all subjects with information regarding the study procedures and consent was obtained.

We placed all subjects in a supine position on a stretcher. We next used a measuring tape to measure and record neck circumference at the level of the cricothyroid membrane. An emergency medicine resident physician (PB) palpated the larynx for stabilization in their routine manner in preparation for a cricothyrotomy procedure. The physician maintained this palpation for 30 seconds at which time we repeated physiologic measurements. The physician then stopped palpation and the subject remained in the supine position for one minute after which we took final physiologic measurements.

Demographic information was obtained prior initiating study procedures. Physiologic measurements taken throughout the study included mean arterial pressure (MAP), pulse oximetry, and cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFV). We measured blood pressure (BP) and pulse oximetry through use of a Nexfin device utilizing finger plethysmography (BMEye, Amsterdam, The Netherlands). We utilized transcranial Doppler (TCD) measurements as a non-invasive method of monitoring CBFV. TCD is currently the only modality that provides a reasonable measurement of CBFV without the use of invasive measurement tools. [17] It is very sensitive for increased ICP and measurements correlate well with invasively-determined pressures as measured by ventriculostomy. [18-21] We measured CBFV using the Spencer Technology ST3 Digital Transcranial Doppler System model PMD150 (Spencer Technologies, Redmond, WA). Specifically, a trained TCD technician took CBFV measurements from each subject’s bilateral middle cerebral arteries (MCA). We obtained these measurements prior to initiation of study procedures with the patient in the supine position, after 30 second of physician airway landmark palpation, and finally one minute after completion of all palpation maneuvers. All data was recorded in real time using hard copy data collection forms. The study team then converted all measurements into a format for storage in an Excel Database (version 14, Microsoft, Redmond, WA).

The primary outcome was change in MCA pulsatility index during palpation for cricothyrotomy. We calculated pulsatility index according to the following equation:

Where FVs = Systolic Flow Velocity; FVd = Diastolic Flow Velocity and FVm = Mean Flow Velocity.

Secondary outcomes include changes in mean CBFV, changes in mean arterial pressure, and changes in heart rate.

Results

We approached 20 individuals for study inclusions. All 20 persons were eligible for and agreed to enroll in the study. All 20 subjects completed all study procedures. The mean age of subjects was 32 years and predominantly male (80%, Table 1).

Table 1

Patient demographics.

	Mean	Range
Age (yrs.)	32	27–42
Male (%)	80
Neck circumference (cm)	38	30–42
Weight (kg)	77	50–98
Height (cm)	176	160–188

We observed no significant differences in mean pulsatility index or CBFV of the right and left MCAs between baseline, palpation, and post palpation measurements (Table 2, Fig 1). Physiologic measurements were similarly comparable across the three time measurements (Table 3). While there was a rise in mean arterial pressure (MAP) which reached statistical significance, the effect size difference is unlikely to be clinically significant (1.26 mm Hg).

Table 2

Pulsatility index and cerebral blood flow velocity measurements.

	Mean (SD)
	Baseline	Start palp	End palp	Baseline vs. start palp	Baseline vs. end palp
PI–Right	0.77 (0.12)	0.78 (0.08)	0.75 (0.09)	0.02 (-0.06, 0.09)	-0.02 (-0.09, 0.06)
PI–Left	0.77 (0.13)	0.78 (0.12)	0.75 (0.09)	0.01 (-0.01, 0.01)	-0.02 (-0.11, 0.07)
CBFV–Right	59.00 (11.87)	58.85 (12.59)	58.30 (11.86)	-0.15 (-9.60, 9.30)	-0.70 (-10.15, 8.75)
CBFV–Left	58.40 (12.16)	58.00 (12.72)	57.20 (11.56)	-0.40 (-9.88, 9.08)	-1.20 (-10.68, 8.28)

Fig 1

Cerebral blood flow velocity.

The horizontal axis separates the three separate times at which we took measurements: pre-palpation (baseline), after 30 seconds of initial palpation (start palpation), and one minute after completion of palpation (end palpation). The vertical axis represents cerebral blood flow velocity (cm/s). The blue solid line represents mean values for all right MCA measurements. The red dashed line represents mean values for all left MCA measurements. The vertical bars represent the 95% confidence intervals for each of the mean values.

Table 3

Physiologic measurements.

	Baseline	Palpation	Difference (95% CI)
HR (beats per minute)	58.3 (6.2)	57.2 (5.7)	-1.1 (-2.4, 0.1)
MAP (mm Hg)	90.5 (7.3)	91.8 (8.4)	1.3 (0.1, 2.4)

Discussion

Based on TCCC guidelines, cricothyrotomy is the primary invasive method for securing an airway in the prehospital combat environment. Many patients requiring airway management in this setting will have concomitant TBI. Avoiding rises in ICP is critical to optimize outcomes among these patients given the importance of maintaining cerebral blood flow. Prior to this study, the impact of the palpation of neck landmarks in preparation for the cricothyrotomy procedure on cerebral blood flow was unclear. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate changes in cerebral blood flow during cricothyrotomy. Using healthy volunteers that mimic the typical combat casualty population, we found no evidence of increased intracranial pressure during palpation for cricothyrotomy. Methods to reduce the ICP changes that occur during cricothyrotomy are needed–our study suggests that the palpatory preparation stage is not a procedural task that requires changes or interventions to avoid ICP spikes.

Previous studies have evaluated airway manipulation during standard laryngoscopy. These studies showed significant increases in ICP as well as systemic blood pressure and heart rate with laryngoscopy and tube placement. [10,11,14,15,22-26] However, we did not find that such external manipulation caused the same effects. It may be that manipulation of the epiglottis and vallecula leads to more ICP alterations rather than palpation of external airway structures.

Our results do not support any changes to current guidelines for performance of the cricothyrotomy procedure or utilization of this procedure by prehospital providers in the deployed environment. Our data does suggest that further research is needed to find the procedural task that can be best targeted to develop methods to blunt ICP effects from the procedure. We recommend further studies using a large animal model with similar anatomy to the human airway. Such a study is not feasible in humans given the invasiveness of the procedure, as such, we limited our study to external measurements only.

Our study has several limitations. First, we enrolled subjects that are young, healthy and without significant injury, specifically TBI. We do not know how the presence of a TBI would have altered our findings. Second, we evaluated only the palpation portion of cricothyrotomy. We are unable to assess which invasive steps may lead to ICP spikes, including internal airway structure palpation. Third, we used non-invasive measurements to estimate ICP. While several studies have shown correlation between CBFV as measured by TCD and ICP it is possible that invasive monitoring would reveal more significant changes [21,27,28]. Fourth, a single provider performed all palpations. It is possible that landmark palpation by other providers would have yielded greater impacts on our measurements if they used a different preparatory palpation technique, more force, or more directional changes for example. Fifth, due to ethical issues, we had to use healthy individuals that were not experiencing injuries or physiology that would frequently be present after polytrauma (e.g. hypoxia, TBI, etc.). As such, our results should be considered informative for future research and hypothesis generating.

Conclusion

In healthy individuals, no clinically significant changes in cerebral blood flow velocities, ICP, or changes heart rate were observed during palpation for cricothyrotomy.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

7 May 2020

PONE-D-20-03670

Cerebral Blood Flow During Palpation for Cricothyrotomy

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Steven G. Schauer,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by May 25, 2020. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alon Harris

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements

1.When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: It is a well written article. Patients requiring cricothyrotomy are usually hypoxic and this itself can raise the ICP and cause changes in the cerebral blood flow. Examining normal patients and palpating their cricothyroid has not shown a change in the cerebral blood PI and CBFV in your study. You have not used any patients with hypoxia requiring cricothyrotomy. That would have given more power to your study as you would have both cases and controls.

Reviewer #2: 1. The title is misleading

2. "It is unclear at this time how airway management via cricothyrotomy affects cerebral blood flow and hemodynamics. In this study we sought to determine the change in CBF during the palpation of neck landmarks in preparation for cricothyrotomy."

The study design enable us to see whether palpation evokes any CBF change in healthy probands and nothing more

3. Discussion

Our study has several limitations.... We do not know how the presence of a TBI would have altered our findings.

The basic data (vital data as BP CBF) of patients undergoing a cricothyrotomy are completely different than a healthy non stressed proband. You can not compare it, the only statement you can make is that CBF dos not change during palpation in healthy proband.

Conclusion

This preliminary study suggests the palpation stage is not a potential target for interventions to avoid ICP spikes during cricothyrotomy.

This statement is not correct.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

2 Jun 2020

Please see Word document

Submitted filename: Plos ONE Cric palpation responses 07MAY SGS.docx

Click here for additional data file.

6 Jul 2020

Cerebral Blood Flow Changes During Palpation of External Airway Structures in Healthy Volunteers

PONE-D-20-03670R1

Dear Dr. Schauer,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alon Harris

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have added a sentence on why the study was done only on healthy volunteers which was a concern that was raised during the previous review.

Reviewer #2: The authors addressed all the remarks. The name of the study as well as the discussion and conclusions were changed as suggested.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

15 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-03670R1

Cerebral Blood Flow Changes During Palpation of External Airway Structures in Healthy Volunteers

Dear Dr. Schauer:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Alon Harris

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE