Suppr超能文献

在急诊科比较 GlideScope 视频喉镜与直接喉镜插管。

A comparison of GlideScope video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy intubation in the emergency department.

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Francisco, Fresno, CA, USA.

出版信息

Acad Emerg Med. 2009 Sep;16(9):866-71. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2009.00492.x. Epub 2009 Aug 6.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The first-attempt success rate of intubation was compared using GlideScope video laryngoscopy and direct laryngoscopy in an emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A prospective observational study was conducted of adult patients undergoing intubation in the ED of a Level 1 trauma center with an emergency medicine residency program. Patients were consecutively enrolled between August 2006 and February 2008. Data collected included indication for intubation, patient characteristics, device used, initial oxygen saturation, and resident postgraduate year. The primary outcome measure was success with first attempt. Secondary outcome measures included time to successful intubation, intubation failure, and lowest oxygen saturation levels. An attempt was defined as the introduction of the laryngoscope into the mouth. Failure was defined as an esophageal intubation, changing to a different device or physician, or inability to place the endotracheal tube after three attempts.

RESULTS

A total of 280 patients were enrolled, of whom video laryngoscopy was used for the initial intubation attempt in 63 (22%) and direct laryngoscopy was used in 217 (78%). Reasons for intubation included altered mental status (64%), respiratory distress (47%), facial trauma (9%), and immobilization for imaging (9%). Overall, 233 (83%) intubations were successful on the first attempt, 26 (9%) failures occurred, and one patient received a cricothyrotomy. The first-attempt success rate was 51 of 63 (81%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 70% to 89%) for video laryngoscopy versus 182 of 217 (84%, 95% CI = 79% to 88%) for direct laryngoscopy (p = 0.59). Median time to successful intubation was 42 seconds (range, 13 to 350 seconds) for video laryngoscopy versus 30 seconds (range, 11 to 600 seconds) for direct laryngoscopy (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of successful intubation on first attempt were not significantly different between video and direct laryngoscopy. However, intubation using video laryngoscopy required significantly more time to complete.

摘要

目的

比较在急诊科使用 GlideScope 视频喉镜和直接喉镜进行插管的首次尝试成功率。

方法

这是一项在具有急诊医学住院医师培训计划的 1 级创伤中心急诊科进行的成人患者插管的前瞻性观察研究。2006 年 8 月至 2008 年 2 月期间连续纳入患者。收集的数据包括插管指征、患者特征、使用的设备、初始血氧饱和度和住院医生研究生年级。主要观察指标是首次尝试的成功率。次要观察指标包括插管成功所需时间、插管失败和最低血氧饱和度。一次尝试定义为喉镜进入口腔。失败定义为食管插管、更换不同设备或医师、或三次尝试后无法放置气管内导管。

结果

共纳入 280 例患者,其中 63 例(22%)患者使用视频喉镜进行初始插管尝试,217 例(78%)患者使用直接喉镜进行插管。插管的原因包括意识状态改变(64%)、呼吸窘迫(47%)、面部创伤(9%)和影像学检查固定(9%)。总体而言,233 例(83%)插管首次尝试成功,26 例(9%)插管失败,1 例患者行环甲膜切开术。视频喉镜首次尝试成功率为 63 例中的 51 例(81%,95%置信区间 [CI] = 70%至 89%),直接喉镜为 217 例中的 182 例(84%,95%CI = 79%至 88%)(p = 0.59)。视频喉镜成功插管的中位时间为 42 秒(范围 13 至 350 秒),直接喉镜为 30 秒(范围 11 至 600 秒)(p < 0.01)。

结论

视频喉镜和直接喉镜首次尝试插管成功率无显著差异。然而,使用视频喉镜插管完成时间显著更长。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验