首页> 外文期刊>BMC research notes >A comparison of emergency airway management between neuromuscular blockades alone and rapid sequence intubation: an analysis of multicenter prospective study
【24h】

A comparison of emergency airway management between neuromuscular blockades alone and rapid sequence intubation: an analysis of multicenter prospective study

机译:单独的神经肌肉阻滞和快速插管之间的紧急气道管理比较:多中心前瞻性研究分析

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

BackgroundAlthough airway management with neuromuscular blockade (NMB) alone is discouraged in the emergency department (ED), our previous study demonstrated that many patients were intubated using NMBs alone without sedatives. To refute this practice, we sought to compare the intubation success and adverse event rates between NMBs only and rapid sequence intubation (RSI). MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of the data from a prospective observational study of ED patients in 13 hospitals who underwent emergency airway management from April 2010 to August 2012. The primary outcome was intubation success rate on first attempt. The secondary outcomes were the intubation success rate in?≤2 attempts and the intubation-related adverse event rate. We compared these outcomes between intubation attempts using NMB alone and RSI. We fit multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, weight, primary indication for intubation, and training level of intubators). ResultsOverall, 852 patients were eligible for this analysis, with 114 (13%) intubated with NMB alone and 738 (87%) with RSI. Between the NMB-alone and RSI groups, no significant differences were observed in the success rate on the first attempt (70 vs. 73%; P?=?0.48) or in?≤2 attempts (89 vs. 91%; P?=?0.46), or in the adverse event rate (11 vs. 12%; P?=?0.58). Similarly, after adjusting for confounders, no significant differences were observed in any of these outcomes (all P?>?0.05). ConclusionsIn this analysis of data from a large multicenter study of ED patients, we found no superior effectiveness of intubation with NMB alone when compared to RSI. Our data lend significant support to the concept that intubation with NMB alone should be avoided in the ED.
机译:背景尽管急诊科(ED)不建议仅通过神经肌肉阻滞(NMB)进行气道管理,但我们先前的研究表明,许多患者仅使用NMB进行了镇静,但未使用镇静剂。为了反驳这种做法,我们试图比较仅NMB与快速序列插管(RSI)之间的插管成功率和不良事件发生率。方法这是对2010年4月至2012年8月接受急诊气道管理的13所医院的ED患者进行前瞻性观察研究的数据的二级分析。主要结果是首次尝试进行插管成功率。次要结果是尝试≤2次的插管成功率和与插管相关的不良事件发生率。我们比较了单独使用NMB和RSI进行插管尝试的结果。我们拟合了多变量逻辑回归模型,对潜在的混杂因素(年龄,性别,体重,插管的主要指征以及插管器的培训水平)进行了调整。结果总体上,有852例患者符合此分析条件,其中114例(13%)仅接受NMB插管,738例(87%)接受RSI插管。在仅NMB组和RSI组之间,首次尝试的成功率(70%vs. 73%; P?=?0.48)或不超过2次尝试(89%vs. 91%; P?),没有显着差异。 =≤0.46),或不良事件发生率(11%vs. 12%; P = 0.58)。同样,在调整混杂因素后,这些结果中的任何一个都没有观察到显着差异(所有P≥0.05)。结论在对大型ED患者多中心研究的数据进行的分析中,我们发现,与RSI相比,单独使用NMB插管没有更好的效果。我们的数据为急诊室应避免仅使用NMB插管这一概念提供了重要支持。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号