Background: The risk of severe medical and surgical events during long-duration spaceflight is significant. In space, many environmental and psychological factors may make tracheal intubation more difficult than on Earth. We hypothesised that, in microgravity, tracheal intubation may be facilitated by the use of a videolaryngoscope compared with direct laryngoscopy. Methods: In a non-randomised, controlled, cross-over simulation study, we compared intubation performance of novice operators and experts, using either a direct laryngoscope or a videolaryngoscope, in weightlessness and in normogravity. The primary outcome was the success rate of tracheal intubation. Time to intubation and the confidence score into the success of tube placement were also recorded. Results: When novices attempted to intubate the trachea in microgravity, the success rate of tracheal intubation using a videolaryngoscope was significantly higher (20/25 [80%]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.3e95.7 vs eight/20 [40%]; 95% CI, 18.5e61.5; P¼0.006), and intubation time was shorter, compared with using a direct laryngoscope. In normogravity, the success rate of tracheal intubation by experts was significantly higher than that by novices (16/ 20 [80%]; 95% CI, 62.5e97.5 vs seven/25 [28%]; 95% CI, 10.4e45.6; P¼0.001), but in microgravity, there was no significant difference between the experts and novices (19/20 [95%]; 95% CI, 85.4e100 vs 20/25 [80%]; 95% CI, 64.3e95.7; P¼0.113). Higher confidence scores were achieved with videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy by both experts and novices in both microgravity and normogravity. Conclusions: Videolaryngoscopy was associated with higher intubation success rate and speed, and higher confidence for correct tube placement by novice operators in microgravity, and as such may represent the best technique for advanced airway management during long-duration spaceflight.

Background With the “Artemis”-mission mankind will return to the Moon by 2024. Prolonged periods in space will not only present physical and psychological challenges to the astronauts, but also pose risks concerning the medical treatment capabilities of the crew. So far, no guideline exists for the treatment of severe medical emergencies in microgravity. We, as a international group of researchers related to the field of aerospace medicine and critical care, took on the challenge and developed a an evidence-based guideline for the arguably most severe medical emergency – cardiac arrest. Methods After the creation of said international group, PICO questions regarding the topic cardiopulmonary resuscitation in microgravity were developed to guide the systematic literature research. Afterwards a precise search strategy was compiled which was then applied to “MEDLINE”. Four thousand one hundred sixty-five findings were retrieved and consecutively screened by at least 2 reviewers. This led to 88 original publications that were acquired in full-text version and then critically appraised using the GRADE methodology. Those studies formed to basis for the guideline recommendations that were designed by at least 2 experts on the given field. Afterwards those recommendations were subject to a consensus finding process according to the DELPHI-methodology. Results We recommend a differentiated approach to CPR in microgravity with a division into basic life support (BLS) and advanced life support (ALS) similar to the Earth-based guidelines. In immediate BLS, the chest compression method of choice is the Evetts-Russomano method (ER), whereas in an ALS scenario, with the patient being restrained on the Crew Medical Restraint System, the handstand method (HS) should be applied. Airway management should only be performed if at least two rescuers are present and the patient has been restrained. A supraglottic airway device should be used for airway management where crew members untrained in tracheal intubation (TI) are involved. Discussion CPR in microgravity is feasible and should be applied according to the Earth-based guidelines of the AHA/ERC in relation to fundamental statements, like urgent recognition and action, focus on high-quality chest compressions, compression depth and compression-ventilation ratio. However, the special circumstances presented by microgravity and spaceflight must be considered concerning central points such as rescuer position and methods for the performance of chest compressions, airway management and defibrillation.

In the next few years, the number of long-term space missions will significantly increase. Providing safe concepts for emergencies including airway management will be a highly challenging task. The aim of the present trial is to compare different airway management devices in simulated microgravity using a free-floating underwater scenario. Five different devices for airway management [laryngeal mask (LM), laryngeal tube (LT), I-GEL, direct laryngoscopy (DL), and video laryngoscopy (VL)] were compared by n = 20 paramedics holding a diving certificate in a randomized cross-over setting both under free-floating conditions in a submerged setting (pool, microgravity) and on ground (normogravity). The primary endpoint was the successful placement of the airway device. The secondary endpoints were the number of attempts and the time to ventilation. A total of 20 paramedics (3 female, 17 male) participated in this study. Success rate was highest for LM and LT and was 100% both during simulated microgravity and normogravity followed by the I-GEL (90% during microgravity and 95% during normogravity). However, the success rate was less for both DL (60% vs. 95%) and VL (20% vs. 60%). Fastest ventilation was performed with the LT both in normogravity (13.7 ± 5.3 s; n = 20) and microgravity (19.5 ± 6.1 s; n = 20). For the comparison of normogravity and microgravity, time to ventilation was shorter for all devices on the ground (normogravity) as compared underwater (microgravity). In the present study, airway management with supraglottic airways and laryngoscopy was shown to be feasible. Concerning the success rate and time to ventilation, the optimum were supraglottic airways (LT, LM, I-GEL) as their placement was faster and associated with a higher success rate. For future space missions, the use of supraglottic airways for airway management seems to be more promising as compared to tracheal intubation by DL or VL.