...
首页> 外文期刊>Emergency Medicine International >Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial
【24h】

Comparison of Different Intubation Methods in Difficult Airways during Simulated Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation with Continuous Chest Compression: A Randomized Cross-Over Manikin Trial

机译:连续胸部压缩模拟心肺复苏期间困难气道不同插管方法的比较:随机交叉的Manikin试验

获取原文
           

摘要

Introduction. Airway management is one of key elements of resuscitation. Endotracheal intubation is still considered the gold standard for airway management during resuscitation. Aim. The aim of the study was to compare success rates and intubation time of different endotracheal intubation methods during emergency intubation with difficult airways in the conditions of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a standardized manikin model. Methods. The study was designed as a prospective, randomized, cross-over simulation study. It involved 46 paramedics with at least 5 years of experience in Emergency Medical Service. The participants performed endotracheal intubation under difficult airway conditions during continuous chest compression, implemented with the LUCAS3 chest compression system. Three methods of tracheal intubation were applied: (1) standard Macintosh laryngoscope without a bougie stylet; (2) standard laryngoscope and a standard bougie stylet; (3) standard laryngoscope and a new bougie stylet. Results. The overall intubation success rate was 100% in the standard bougie and new bougie groups and lower (86.9%) when no bougie stylet was used (P=0.028). The intubation success rate with the 1st attempt equalled 91.3% for the new bougie group, 73.9% for standard bougie, and only 23.9% in the no-bougie group. The median intubation time was shortest in the new bougie group, where it amounted to 29 s (interquartile range [IQR]: 25–38); the time equalled 38s (IQR:31–44.5) in the standard bougie group and 47.5s (IQR:36–58) in the no-bougie group. The ease of use was lowest in the no-bougie group (85, IQR:63–88), average in the standard bougie group (44, IQR:30–51), and highest in the new bougie stylet group (32, IQR:19–41). Conclusion. In this manikin-based study, paramedics were able to perform endotracheal intubation with higher efficacy and in a shorter time using the new bougie stylet as compared with the standard bougie stylet.
机译:介绍。 Airway Management是复苏的关键要素之一。气管插管仍然认为在复苏期间的气道管理金标准。目标。该研究的目的是在标准化人体模型中的心肺复苏条件下比较不同的气管内插管方法的成功率和插管急性插管。方法。该研究被设计为前瞻性,随机的交叉模拟研究。它涉及46个医务人员,至少有5年的紧急医疗服务经验。参与者在连续胸部压缩期间在困难的气道条件下进行了气管内插管,用Lucas3胸部压缩系统实施。采用了三种气管插管方法:(1)没有Bougie Stylet的标准Macintosh喉镜; (2)标准喉镜和标准的Bougie Stylet; (3)标准喉镜和新的Bougie Stylet。结果。当使用任何Bougie Stylet时,标准的Bougie和新的Bougie群体总体插管成功率为100%(P = 0.028)时,较低(86.9%)。插管成功率与第一次尝试相等,新的Bougie集团为91.3%,标准的Bougie 73.9%,在No-Bougie集团中只有23.9%。中位插管时间在新的Bougie集团中最短,其中它达到29秒(四分位数范围[IQR]:25-38);在No-Bougie集团的标准Bougie集团和47.5秒(IQR:36-58)中,时间等于38年(IQR:31-44.5)。 No-Bougie集团(85,IQR:63-88)的易用性最低,标准的Bougie集团(44,IQR:30-51)中的平均值,以及新的Bougie Standet集团的最高(32,IQR :19-41)。结论。在这个基于Manikin的研究中,Paramedics能够以更高的疗效和较短的时间来进行气管内插管,并使用新的Bougie Stylet较短的时间。

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