...
首页> 外文期刊>Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica >Temporal comparison of ultrasound vs. auscultation and capnography in verification of endotracheal tube placement.
【24h】

Temporal comparison of ultrasound vs. auscultation and capnography in verification of endotracheal tube placement.

机译:超声与听诊和二氧化碳描记图在时间上的比较,以验证气管插管的位置。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: This study compared the time consumption of bilateral lung ultrasound with auscultation and capnography for verifying endotracheal intubation. METHODS: A prospective, paired, and investigator-blinded study carried out in the operating theatre. Twenty-five adult patients requiring endotracheal intubation were included. During intubation, transtracheal ultrasound was performed to visualize passage of the endotracheal tube. During bag ventilation, bilateral lung ultrasound was performed for the detection of lung sliding as a sign of ventilation simultaneous with capnography and auscultation of the epigastrium and chest. Primary outcome measure was time difference to confirmed endotracheal intubation between ultrasound and auscultation alone. Secondary outcome measure was time difference between ultrasound and auscultation combined with capnography. RESULTS: Both methods verified endotracheal tube placement in all patients. In 68% of patients, endotracheal tube placement was visualized by real-time transtracheal ultrasound. Comparing ultrasound with the combination of auscultation and capnography, there was a significant difference between the two methods. Median time for ultrasound was 40 s [interquartile range (IQR) 35-48 s] vs. 48 s (IQR 45-53 s), P < 0.0001. Mean difference was -7.1 s in favour of ultrasound [95% confidence interval (CI) -9.4--4.8 s]. No significant difference was found between ultrasound compared with auscultation alone. Median time for auscultation alone was 42 s (IQR 37-47 s), P = 0.6, with a mean difference of -0.88 s in favour of ultrasound (95% CI -4.2-2.5 s). CONCLUSIONS: Verification of endotracheal tube placement with ultrasound is as fast as auscultation alone and faster than the standard method of auscultation and capnography.
机译:背景:本研究将双侧肺部超声的时间消耗与听诊和二氧化碳图检查相比较,以验证气管插管。方法:在手术室进行的前瞻性,配对和研究者盲法研究。包括25名需要气管插管的成年患者。在插管过程中,进行气管超声检查以可视化气管插管的通道。在气囊通气期间,进​​行双侧肺部超声检查以检测肺滑行,以作为通气的标志,同时进行二氧化碳描记术,上腹部和胸部听诊。主要结局指标是仅在超声和听诊之间确认气管插管的时间差。次要结果指标是超声和听诊结合二氧化碳描记术之间的时间差。结果:两种方法均验证了所有患者的气管插管位置。在68%的患者中,通过实时经气管超声观察气管导管的位置。将超声与听诊和二氧化碳图检查相比较,两种方法之间存在显着差异。超声的中位时间为40 s [四分位间距(IQR)35-48 s],而48 s(IQR 45-53 s),P <0.0001。超声平均差为-7.1 s [95%置信区间(CI)-9.4--4.8 s]。与单独的听诊相比,超声之间没有发现显着差异。单独听诊的中位时间为42 s(IQR 37-47 s),P = 0.6,平均差为-0.88 s,有利于超声检查(95%CI -4.2-2.5 s)。结论:超声检查气管内插管的速度与单独听诊一样快,并且比标准的听诊和二氧化碳描记法要快。

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