首页> 外文期刊>The Journal of Emergency Medicine >THE C-MAC (R) VIDEO LARYNGOSCOPE IS SUPERIOR TO THE DIRECT LARYNGOSCOPE FOR THE RESCUE OF FAILED FIRST-ATTEMPT INTUBATIONS IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT
【24h】

THE C-MAC (R) VIDEO LARYNGOSCOPE IS SUPERIOR TO THE DIRECT LARYNGOSCOPE FOR THE RESCUE OF FAILED FIRST-ATTEMPT INTUBATIONS IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT

机译:C-MAC(R)视频喉镜比直接喉镜更能抢救紧急情况下的首次尝试插入

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of the C-MAC (R) video laryngoscope (CMAC) to the direct laryngoscope (DL) when used to rescue a failed first attempt intubation in the emergency department (ED). Methods: Data were prospectively collected on all patients intubated in an academic ED center over a five-year period from February 1, 2009 to January 31, 2014 when both the CMAC and the DL were available. Following each intubation the operator completed a continuous quality improvement (CQI) form documenting patient, operator and intubation characteristics. All orotracheal intubations attempted by emergency physicians (EPs) on adult patients with a failed first intubation attempt, and in which the CMAC or the DL was used for the second attempt, were included. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the second attempt using either the CMAC or the DL. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders. Results: During the five-year study period, there were 460 adult orotracheal intubation attempts by EPs which were not successful on the first attempt. In 398 (86.5%) of these cases the same operator performed the second attempt. The CMAC was utilized for the second attempt in 141 cases and was successful in 116 (82.3%; 95% CI 75.0%-88.2%) and the DL was utilized in 94 cases and was successful in 58 (61.7%; 95% CI 51.1%-71.5%). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis the CMAC was associated with an increased odds (adjusted OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.9-6.7) of a second attempt success compared to the DL. Conclusions: After a failed first intubation attempt in the ED, regardless of the initial device used, the CMAC was more successful than the DL when used for the second attempt. This suggests that the CMAC is the preferred rescue device after an initial intubation attempt in the ED fails. (C) 2015 Elsevier Inc.
机译:目的:比较C-MAC(R)视频喉镜(CMAC)与直接喉镜(DL)在抢救急诊科(ED)失败的首次尝试插管时的有效性。方法:前瞻性收集从2009年2月1日至2014年1月31日这5年内同时在CMAC和DL均可用的情况下在学术ED中心插管的所有患者的数据。每次插管后,操作员都要完成记录患者,操作员和插管特征的持续质量改进(CQI)表格。包括急诊医师(EP)对首次插管尝试失败的成年患者进行的所有口气管插管,其中第二次尝试使用CMAC或DL。主要结果是使用CMAC或DL成功进行了第二次插管。进行了多元逻辑回归分析以调整潜在的混杂因素。结果:在为期五年的研究期内,有460例EP进行了成人气管插管尝试,但首次尝试均未成功。在这些情况下的398次(86.5%)中,同一操作员执行了第二次尝试。 CMAC用于141例的第二次尝试,成功116例(82.3%; 95%CI 75.0%-88.2%),DL用于94例,成功58例(61.7%; 95%CI 51.1) %-71.5%)。在多因素logistic回归分析中,与DL相比,CMAC与第二次尝试成功的几率增加(调整后的OR 3.5; 95%CI 1.9-6.7)。结论:在ED中首次插管尝试失败后,无论使用哪种初始设备,用于第二次尝试的CMAC比DL更成功。这表明在ED中的初始插管尝试失败后,CMAC是首选的救援设备。 (C)2015爱思唯尔公司

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