Abstract Background: Tracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 is a high-risk procedure that should be performed with personal protective equipment (PPE). The influence of PPE on operator’s performance during tracheal intubation remains unclear. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of simulation studies to evaluate the influence of wearing PPE as compared to standard uniform regarding time-to-intubation (TTI) and success rate. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to device used and operator’s experience. Results: The TTI was prolonged when wearing PPE (eight studies): Standard Mean Difference (SMD)-0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [-0.75,-0.34], p < 0.0001. Subgroup analyses according to device used showed similar findings (direct laryngoscopy, SMD-0.63 [-0.88,-0.38], p < 0.0001; videolaryngoscopy, SMD-0.39 [-0.75,-0.02], p = 0.04). Considering the operator’s experience, non-anesthesiologists had prolonged TTI (SMD-0.75 [-0.98,-0.52], p < 0.0001) while the analysis on anesthesiologists did not show significant differences (SMD-0.25 [-0.51, 0.01], p = 0.06). The success rate of tracheal intubation was not influenced by PPE: Risk Ratio (RR) 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]; p = 0.12). Subgroup analyses according to device demonstrated similar results (direct laryngoscopy, RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.07], p = 0.15, videolaryngoscopy, RR 1.01 [0.98, 1.04], p = 0.52). Wearing PPE had a trend towards negative influence on success rate in non-anesthesiologists (RR 1.05 [1.00, 1.10], p = 0.05), but not in anesthesiologists (RR 1.00 [0.98, 1.03], p = 0.84). Trial-sequential analyses for TTI and success rate indicated robustness of both results. Conclusions: Under simulated conditions, wearing PPE delays the TTI as compared to dressing standard uniform, with no influence on the success rate. However, certainty of evidence is very low. Performing tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy seems influenced to a greater extent as compared to videolaryngoscopy. Similarly, wearing PPE affects more the non-anesthesiologists subgroup as compared to anesthesiologists.

RESUMO Objetivo: Realizar uma revisão sistemática para sumarizar o conhecimento relativo à prevalência de burnout entre médicos atuantes na unidade de terapia intensiva. Métodos: Conduzimos uma revisão sistemática nas bases de dados MEDLINE e PubMed® (última atualização em 4 de fevereiro de 2019), com o objetivo de resumir a evidência a respeito de burnout entre médicos atuantes em unidades de terapia intensiva. Incluímos todos os estudos que relatavam burnout em trabalhadores na unidade de terapia intensiva, segundo o Inventário de Burnout de Maslach e, a seguir, triamos os estudos quanto a dados relativos a burnout especificamente em médicos atuantes na unidade de terapia intensiva. Resultados: Encontramos 31 estudos que descreviam burnout em membros da equipe da unidade de terapia intensiva e incluíam diferentes perfis de profissionais de saúde. Dentre estes, cinco estudos se focalizavam apenas em médicos, e 12 outros investigavam burnout em uma mescla de profissionais atuantes na unidade de terapia intensiva, mas forneciam dados à parte relativos aos médicos. A prevalência de burnout teve grande variação entre os estudos (variando entre 18% e 49%), porém diversas discrepâncias metodológicas, dentre elas os critérios de corte para definição de burnout e variabilidade da escala de Likert, impediram uma análise agrupada significativa. Conclusão: A prevalência da síndrome de burnout entre médicos atuantes na unidade de terapia intensiva é relativamente alta, porém heterogeneidades metodológicas significantes exigem precauções na interpretação de nossos resultados. Os níveis mais baixos de burnout relatados parecem mais elevados do que os identificados em estudos que investigaram uma mescla de profissionais da unidade de terapia intensiva. Há uma necessidade urgente de consenso que recomende o uso consistente do Inventário de Burnout de Maslach para triar a presença de burnout a fim de fornecer dados precisos a respeito de burnout entre médicos atuantes na unidade de terapia intensiva.

Abstract Objective: We performed a systematic review to summarize the knowledge regarding the prevalence of burnout among intensive care unit physicians. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE and PubMed® databases (last update 04.02.2019) with the goal of summarizing the evidence on burnout among intensive care unit physicians. We included all studies reporting burnout in intensive care unit personnel according to the Maslach Burnout Inventory questionnaire and then screened studies for data on burnout among intensive care unit physician specifically. Results: We found 31 studies describing burnout in intensive care unit staff and including different healthcare profiles. Among these, 5 studies focused on physicians only, and 12 others investigated burnout in mixed intensive care unit personnel but provided separate data on physicians. The prevalence of burnout varied greatly across studies (range 18% - 49%), but several methodological discrepancies, among them cut-off criteria for defining burnout and variability in the Likert scale, precluded a meaningful pooled analysis. Conclusion: The prevalence of burnout syndrome among intensive care unit physicians is relatively high, but significant methodological heterogeneities warrant caution being used in interpreting our results. The lower reported levels of burnout seem higher than those found in studies investigating mixed intensive care unit personnel. There is an urgent need for consensus recommending a consistent use of the Maslach Burnout Inventory test to screen burnout, in order to provide precise figures on burnout in intensive care unit physicians.