Rebmann Terri, Clements Bruce W, Bailey Jeffrey A, Evans R Gregory
Institute of Biosecurity, Saint Louis University, School of Public Health, St. Louis, Missouri 63104, USA.
J Emerg Med. 2009 Aug;37(2):139-43. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.09.043. Epub 2008 Jun 2.
Organophosphates may be used as weapons in chemical attacks on civilian or military populations. Antidotes are available to counter the effects of organophosphates, but they must be administered shortly after exposure. Timing required to administer organophosphate antidotes using traditional equipment vs. auto-injectors has not been studied. This study is intended to quantify and compare the time required to administer organophosphate antidotes using traditional equipment vs. auto-injectors in different treatment conditions. The study was a randomized, un-blinded design. There were 62 participants assigned to one of three groups: Mark I, ATNAA (antidote treatment nerve agent auto-injector), and traditional needle/syringe; however, the results from only 56 participants could be analyzed. Injection trials were videotaped. Subjects also completed a 14-item survey containing demographic questions, perceived ease of injection, receipt of prior training, and preferred training format for organophosphate treatment. Injection time differentials were compared using one-way analysis of variance; post hoc evaluation was performed using the Scheffe test with Bonferroni correction. Fifty-six subjects completed this study. The ATNAA required less time to administer than the Mark I or traditional needle/syringe devices (p < .001). There was no difference in time to administer the Mark I auto-injectors vs. a traditional needle/syringe. There were no differences between injection time and occupation, receipt of prior training, wearing of personal protective equipment, or perceived ease of injection device use. The use of auto-injectors shortens response time for administering organophosphate antidote treatment. An ATNAA auto-injector can be administered in less than half the time it takes to administer a single injection using a needle and syringe or two injections using a Mark I. Mark I can be administered in approximately the same amount of time it takes to administer a single injection using a needle and syringe. The difference between injection time for the ATNAA and needle and syringe would have been even larger if two injections were given with the needle and syringe. The wearing or absence of personal protective equipment does not affect injection time.
有机磷酸酯类可能会在针对平民或军队的化学袭击中被用作武器。有解毒剂可用于对抗有机磷酸酯类的影响,但必须在接触后不久给药。使用传统设备与自动注射器施用有机磷酸酯类解毒剂所需的时间尚未得到研究。本研究旨在量化并比较在不同治疗条件下使用传统设备与自动注射器施用有机磷酸酯类解毒剂所需的时间。该研究采用随机、非盲设计。62名参与者被分配到三组之一:Mark I、ATNAA(解毒剂治疗神经毒剂自动注射器)和传统针头/注射器;然而,仅能分析56名参与者的结果。注射试验被录像。受试者还完成了一项包含人口统计学问题、感知注射难易程度、接受过的先前培训以及有机磷酸酯类治疗的首选培训形式的14项调查。使用单因素方差分析比较注射时间差异;使用带有Bonferroni校正的Scheffe检验进行事后评估。56名受试者完成了本研究。与Mark I或传统针头/注射器设备相比,施用ATNAA所需时间更少(p < .001)。Mark I自动注射器与传统针头/注射器的施用时间没有差异。注射时间与职业、接受过的先前培训、是否穿戴个人防护装备或感知的注射设备使用难易程度之间没有差异。使用自动注射器可缩短施用有机磷酸酯类解毒剂治疗的反应时间。使用ATNAA自动注射器给药的时间不到使用针头和注射器单次注射或使用Mark I进行两次注射所需时间的一半。使用Mark I给药的时间与使用针头和注射器单次注射所需时间大致相同。如果使用针头和注射器进行两次注射,ATNAA与针头和注射器的注射时间差异会更大。穿戴或不穿戴个人防护装备不影响注射时间。