...
首页> 外文期刊>Western Journal of Emergency Medicine >Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC TipTM Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model
【24h】

Evaluation of Karl Storz CMAC TipTM Device Versus Traditional Airway Suction in a Cadaver Model

机译:在Cadaver模型中评估Karl Storz CMAC TipTM装置与传统气道抽吸的比较

获取原文

摘要

Introduction: We compared the efficacy of Karl Storz CMAC TipTM with inline suction to CMAC with traditional suction device in cadaveric models simulating difficult airways, using media mimicking pulmonary edema and vomit. Methods: This was a prospective, cohort study in which we invited emergency medicine faculty and residents to participate. Each participant intubated 2 cadavers (one with simulated pulmonary edema and one with simulated vomit), using CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Thirty emergency medicine providers performed 4 total intubations each in a crossover trial comparing the CMAC with inline suction and CMAC with traditional suction. Two intubations were performed with simulated vomit and two with simulated pulmonary edema. The primary outcome was time to successful intubation; and the secondary outcome was proportion of successful intubation. Results: The median time to successful intubation using the CMAC with inline suction versus traditional suction in the pulmonary edema group was 29s and 30s respectively (p=0.54). In the vomit simulation, the median time to successful intubation was 40s using the CMAC with inline suction and 41s using the CMAC with traditional suction (p=0.70). There were no significant differences in time to successful intubation between the 2 devices. Similarly, the proportions of successful intubation were also not statistically significant between the 2 devices. The proportions of successful intubations using the inline suction were 96.7% and 73.3%, for the pulmonary edema and vomit groups, respectively. Additionally using the handheld suction device, the proportions for the pulmonary edema and vomit group were 100% and 66.7%, respectively. Conclusion: CMAC with inline suction was no different than CMAC with traditional suction and was associated with no statistically significant differences in median time to intubation or proportion of successful intubations. [West J Emerg Med. 2014;15(4):548-553.].
机译:简介:在使用模拟肺水肿和呕吐的介质模拟尸体模型的尸体模型中,我们比较了采用在线抽吸的Karl Storz CMAC TipTM与采用传统抽吸设备的CMAC的疗效。方法:这是一项前瞻性队列研究,我们邀请急诊医学系和住院医师参加。每位参与者使用CMAC进行在线吸引和CMAC进行传统吸引,对2具尸体进行插管(一个具有模拟的肺水肿,另一个具有模拟的呕吐)。 30家急诊医疗服务提供者在一项交叉试验中对CMAC进行了在线抽吸,将CMAC与传统的抽吸进行了比较,各进行了4次插管。用模拟的呕吐物进行两次插管,用模拟的肺水肿进行两次插管。主要结果是成功插管的时间。次要结果是成功插管的比例。结果:在肺水肿组中,使用CMAC进行在线吸引与传统吸引相比,成功插管的中位时间分别为29s和30s(p = 0.54)。在呕吐模拟中,使用在线吸引的CMAC进行成功插管的中位时间为40s,使用传统吸引的CMAC进行插管成功的中位时间为41s(p = 0.70)。在两个设备之间成功插管的时间没有显着差异。同样,两个设备之间成功插管的比例也没有统计学意义。对于肺水肿和呕吐组,使用在线吸引成功插管的比例分别为96.7%和73.3%。另外,使用手持式抽吸装置,肺水肿和呕吐组的比例分别为100%和66.7%。结论:采用在线吸引的CMAC与采用传统吸引的CMAC并无不同,并且在插管的中位时间或成功插管的比例方面无统计学差异。 [西急救医学杂志。 2014; 15(4):548-553。]。

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