Fan Eddy, MacDonald Russell D, Adhikari Neill K J, Scales Damon C, Wax Randy S, Stewart Thomas E, Ferguson Niall D
Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, University of Toronto, 399 Bathurst Street, F2-150, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 2S8, Canada.
Crit Care. 2006 Feb;10(1):R6. doi: 10.1186/cc3924.
We aimed to determine the adverse events and important prognostic factors associated with interfacility transport of intubated and mechanically ventilated adult patients.
We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL, HEALTHSTAR, and Web of Science (from inception until 10 January 2005) for all clinical studies describing the incidence and predictors of adverse events in intubated and mechanically ventilated adult patients undergoing interfacility transport. The bibliographies of selected articles were also examined.
Five studies (245 patients) met the inclusion criteria. All were case-series and two were prospective in design. Due to the paucity of studies and significant heterogeneity in study population, outcome events, and results, we synthesized data in a qualitative manner. Pre-transport severity of illness was reported in only one study. The most common indication for transport was a need for investigations and/or specialist care (three studies, 220 patients). Transport modalities included air (fixed or rotor wing; 66% of patients) and ground (31%) ambulance, and commercial aircraft (3%). Transport teams included a physician in three studies (220 patients). Death during transfer was rare (n = 1). No other adverse events or significant therapeutic interventions during transport were reported. One study reported a 19% (28/145) incidence of respiratory alkalosis on arrival and another study documented a 30% overall intensive care unit mortality, while no adverse events or outcomes were reported after arrival in the three other studies.
Insufficient data exist to draw firm conclusions regarding the mortality, morbidity, or risk factors associated with the interfacility transport of intubated and mechanically ventilated adult patients. Further study is required to define the risks and benefits of interfacility transfer in this patient population. Such information is important for the planning and allocation of resources related to transporting critically ill adults.
我们旨在确定与气管插管且接受机械通气的成年患者机构间转运相关的不良事件和重要预后因素。
我们对MEDLINE、CENTRAL、EMBASE、CINAHL、HEALTHSTAR和Web of Science(从创刊至2005年1月10日)进行了系统综述,纳入所有描述气管插管且接受机械通气的成年患者机构间转运不良事件发生率及预测因素的临床研究。我们还查阅了所选文章的参考文献。
五项研究(245例患者)符合纳入标准。所有研究均为病例系列研究,其中两项为前瞻性设计。由于研究数量有限,且研究人群、结局事件和结果存在显著异质性,我们采用定性方式综合数据。仅有一项研究报告了转运前的疾病严重程度。最常见的转运指征是需要进行检查和/或专科护理(三项研究,220例患者)。转运方式包括空中(固定翼或旋翼机;66%的患者)和地面(31%)救护车以及商业飞机(3%)。三项研究(220例患者)的转运团队中有医生。转运期间死亡罕见(n = 1)。未报告其他不良事件或转运期间的重大治疗干预措施。一项研究报告到达时呼吸性碱中毒发生率为19%(28/145),另一项研究记录了重症监护病房总体死亡率为30%,而其他三项研究未报告到达后的不良事件或结局。
现有数据不足,无法就气管插管且接受机械通气的成年患者机构间转运的死亡率、发病率或危险因素得出确凿结论。需要进一步研究来明确该患者群体机构间转运的风险和益处。此类信息对于规划和分配与危重症成年患者转运相关的资源非常重要。