Division of Pulmonary Medicine, Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospital, No, 289, Xindian City, Taipei, Taiwan.
Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R26. doi: 10.1186/cc8890. Epub 2010 Mar 1.
Mechanical ventilation of patients may be accomplished by either translaryngeal intubation or tracheostomy. Although numerous intensive care unit (ICU) studies have compared various outcomes between the two techniques, no definitive consensus indicates that tracheostomy is superior. Comparable studies have not been performed in a respiratory care center (RCC) setting.
This was a retrospective observational study of 985 tracheostomy and 227 translaryngeal intubated patients who received treatment in a 24-bed RCC between November 1999 and December 2005. Treatment and mortality outcomes were compared between tracheostomized and translaryngeal intubated patients, and the factors associated with positive outcomes in all patients were determined.
Duration of RCC (22 vs. 14 days) and total hospital stay (82 vs. 64 days) and total mechanical ventilation days (53 vs. 41 days) were significantly longer in tracheostomized patients (all P < 0.05). The rate of in-hospital mortality was significantly higher in the translaryngeal group (45% vs. 31%;P < 0.05). No significant differences were found in weaning success between the groups (both were >55%) or in RCC mortality. Because of significant baseline between-group heterogeneity, case-match analysis was performed. This analysis confirmed the whole cohort findings, except for the fact that a trend for in-hospital mortality was noted to be higher in the translaryngeal group (P = 0.08). Stepwise logistic regression revealed that patients with a lower median severity of disease (APACHE II score <18) who were properly nourished (albumin >2.5 g/dl) or had normal metabolism (BUN <40 mg/dl) were more likely to be successfully weaned and survive (all P < 0.05). Patients who were tracheostomized were also significantly more likely to survive (P < 0.05).
These findings suggest that the type of mechanical ventilation does not appear to be an important determinant of weaning success in an RCC setting. Focused care administered by experienced providers may be more important for facilitating weaning success than the ventilation method used. However, our findings do suggest that tracheostomy may increase the likelihood of patient survival.
患者的机械通气可以通过经喉插管或气管切开来完成。尽管许多重症监护病房(ICU)的研究比较了这两种技术的各种结果,但没有明确的共识表明气管切开术更优越。在呼吸治疗中心(RCC)环境中尚未进行可比的研究。
这是一项回顾性观察性研究,纳入了 1999 年 11 月至 2005 年 12 月在一个 24 张床位的 RCC 接受治疗的 985 例气管切开术和 227 例经喉插管患者。比较气管切开术和经喉插管患者的治疗和死亡率结果,并确定所有患者中与良好结果相关的因素。
RCC(22 天与 14 天)和总住院时间(82 天与 64 天)以及总机械通气天数(53 天与 41 天)在气管切开术患者中显著更长(所有 P < 0.05)。经喉插管组的院内死亡率显著更高(45%比 31%;P < 0.05)。两组间脱机成功率无显著差异(均>55%)或 RCC 死亡率。由于组间存在显著的基线异质性,因此进行了病例匹配分析。该分析证实了整个队列的发现,但经喉插管组的院内死亡率有升高趋势(P = 0.08)。逐步逻辑回归显示,疾病严重程度中位数较低(APACHE II 评分<18)、适当营养(白蛋白>2.5 g/dl)或正常代谢(BUN<40 mg/dl)的患者更有可能成功脱机并存活(所有 P < 0.05)。接受气管切开术的患者也更有可能存活(P < 0.05)。
这些发现表明,在 RCC 环境中,机械通气的类型似乎不是脱机成功的重要决定因素。经验丰富的提供者提供的有针对性的护理可能比所使用的通气方法更重要,有助于脱机成功。然而,我们的发现确实表明气管切开术可能增加患者存活的可能性。