...
首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of trauma >Prehospital Endotracheal Intubation for Trauma Does Not Improve Survival over Bag-Valve-Mask Ventilation
【24h】

Prehospital Endotracheal Intubation for Trauma Does Not Improve Survival over Bag-Valve-Mask Ventilation

机译:院前气管插管治疗创伤并不能改善袋气门面罩通气的生存率

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Few data exist supporting a survival benefit to prehospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) over bag-valve-mask ventilation (BVM) in trauma patients.Data were reviewed from all trauma patients transported to our Level I trauma center receiving prehospital ETI or BVM. Mortality was adjusted by age, Revised Trauma Score, Injury Severity Score, and mechanism of injury (penetrating vs. blunt).Of 5,773 patients, 316 (5.5%) had ETI and 217 (3.8%) had BVM. Patients receiving ETI were significantly more like to die (88.9% vs. 30.9%, p < 0.0001). When corrected for Injury Severity Score, Revised Trauma Score, and mechanism of injury, ETI was associated with similar or greater mortality than BVM. ETI patients had longer prehospital times (22.0 vs. 20.1 minutes, p = 0.0241).In our trauma system, when corrected for mechanism and severity of anatomic and physiologic injury, ETI confers no survival advantage over BVM and slightly increases prehospital time.
机译:很少有数据支持创伤患者比气门-面罩通气(BVM​​)对院前气管内插管(ETI)有生存益处。对所有转运到我院接受住院前ETI或BVM的I级创伤中心的创伤患者的数据进行了回顾。根据年龄,修订的创伤评分,损伤严重程度评分和损伤机制(穿透性与钝性)调整死亡率。5,773例患者中,有316例(5.5%)ETI和217例(3.8%)BVM。接受ETI的患者更倾向于死亡(88.9%比30.9%,p <0.0001)。当校正损伤严重度评分,修订的创伤评分和损伤机制时,ETI与BVM的死亡率相近或更高。 ETI患者的院前时间更长(22.0 vs. 20.1分钟,p = 0.0241)。在我们的创伤系统中,如果对解剖和生理损伤的机理和严重程度进行校正,ETI不能提供优于BVM的生存优势,并且会稍微增加院前时间。

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