Suppr超能文献

[胸部创伤临床前治疗的实际情况——一项前瞻性研究]

[The reality of preclinical treatment in thoracic trauma - a prospective study].

作者信息

Westhoff J, Kälicke T, Muhr G, Kutscha-Lissberg F

机构信息

Chirurgische Klinik und Poliklinik, Berufsgenossenschaftliche Kliniken Bergmannsheil, Universitätsklinik Bochum.

出版信息

Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2002 Jul;37(7):395-402. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-32704.

Abstract

AIM OF THE STUDY

Because of the well proven fact of outcome improvement by early, preclinical intubation and ventilation of multiple injured and polytraumatized patients, the guidelines of different medical associations recommend this procedure especially in combination with blunt chest trauma. By the means of a prospective study protocol we analyzed whether these treatment standards were respected and whether the kind of preclinical treatment was influencing treatment outcome.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Using a prospective study protocol data were sampled and analyzed. From 1.12.2000 to 25.9.2001 48 consecutive patients were included into the protocol. 12 patients (25 %) had preclinical intubation (group A). 8 patients of group A were intubated by the helicopter emergency team. 36 patients had no tracheal tube (group B). In 34 cases mechanical ventilation has to be started during the emergency room procedures. Two patients were intubated after they were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Insertion of a chest tube was done in 5 patients at the scene by the emergency team, in 15 cases after admission to the hospital and 21 at the ICU. Although the average age of years of patients was higher in group B (37,2 +/- 15,0 y vs. 46,9 +/- 21,1 y), p values calculated by ANOVA test revealed no significant difference. The two groups did not differ regarding to injury severity assessed by the "Injury severity score" (group A: 30,9 +/- 13,3; group B: 29,5 +/- 9,2). The mean duration of mechanical ventilation was 9,4 +/- 9,0d vs. 19,2 +/- 20,4 d in group A vs group B. Patients of group A required intensive care treatment for 12,6 +/- 8,7d vs 21,9 +/- 20,4 d of group B. One patient of group A died because of severe cranio cerebral trauma. 13 Patients of group B died (1 x pulmonal embolism, 12 x multiple organ failure).

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of injury severity by the emergency medical teams failed in a very high percentage. Especially the blunt trauma to the chest was not diagnosed and therefore not respected.

摘要

研究目的

鉴于早期临床前对多发伤和复合伤患者进行插管和通气可改善预后这一已被充分证实的事实,不同医学协会的指南推荐此操作,尤其是在合并钝性胸部创伤时。通过一项前瞻性研究方案,我们分析了这些治疗标准是否得到遵守,以及临床前治疗方式是否会影响治疗结果。

患者与方法

采用前瞻性研究方案对数据进行采集和分析。从2000年12月1日至2001年9月25日,连续48例患者纳入该方案。12例患者(25%)进行了临床前插管(A组)。A组中有8例患者由直升机急救团队进行插管。36例患者未行气管插管(B组)。34例患者在急诊室操作期间必须开始机械通气。2例患者在入住重症监护病房(ICU)后进行了插管。5例患者由急救团队在现场插入胸管,15例在入院后插入,21例在ICU插入。尽管B组患者的平均年龄较高(37.2±15.0岁 vs. 46.9±21.1岁),但方差分析计算的p值显示无显著差异。两组在通过“损伤严重度评分”评估的损伤严重程度方面无差异(A组:30.9±13.3;B组:29.5±9.2)。A组机械通气的平均持续时间为9.4±9.0天,B组为19.2±20.4天。A组患者需要重症监护治疗12.6±8.7天,B组为21.9±20.4天。A组1例患者因严重颅脑创伤死亡。B组13例患者死亡(1例肺栓塞,12例多器官功能衰竭)。

结论

急救医疗团队对损伤严重程度的评估失败率很高。尤其是胸部钝性创伤未被诊断出来,因此未得到重视。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验