Department of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis MN, USA.
Acad Emerg Med. 2010 Jun;17(6):666-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00753.x. Epub 2010 May 14.
The objective was to compare time to completion, failure rate, and subjective difficulty of a new cricothyrotomy technique to the standard technique. The new bougie-assisted cricothyrotomy technique (BACT) is similar to the rapid four-step technique (RFST), but a bougie and endotracheal tube are inserted rather than a Shiley tracheostomy tube.
This was a randomized controlled trail conducted on domestic sheep. During a 3-month period inexperienced residents or students were randomized to perform cricothyrotomy on anesthetized sheep using either the standard technique or the BACT. Operators were trained with an educational video before the procedure. Time to successful cricothyrotomy was recorded. The resident or student was then asked to rate the difficulty of the procedure on a five-point scale from 1 (very easy) to 5 (very difficult).
Twenty-one residents and students were included in the study: 11 in the standard group and 10 in the BACT group. Compared to the standard technique, the BACT was significantly faster with a median time of 67 seconds (interquartile range [IQR] = 55-82) versus 149 seconds (IQR = 111-201) for the standard technique (p = 0.002). The BACT was also rated easier to perform (median = 2, IQR = 1-3) than the standard technique (median = 3, IQR = 2-4; p = 0.04). The failure rate was 1/10 for the BACT compared to 3/11 for the standard method (p = NS).
This study demonstrates that the BACT is faster than the standard technique and has a similar failure rate when performed by inexperienced providers on anesthetized sheep.
比较新的环甲膜切开术(BACT)与标准技术的完成时间、失败率和主观难度。新的引导管辅助环甲膜切开术(BACT)类似于快速四步技术(RFST),但插入的是引导管和气管导管,而不是 Shiley 气管切开管。
这是一项在国内绵羊身上进行的随机对照试验。在 3 个月的时间里,经验不足的住院医师或学生随机使用标准技术或 BACT 对麻醉绵羊进行环甲膜切开术。在手术前,操作者通过教育视频进行培训。记录成功进行环甲膜切开术的时间。然后,住院医师或学生被要求在 1(非常容易)到 5(非常困难)的五分制上对该程序的难度进行评分。
共有 21 名住院医师和学生参与了这项研究:标准组 11 名,BACT 组 10 名。与标准技术相比,BACT 明显更快,中位时间为 67 秒(四分位距 [IQR] = 55-82),而标准技术为 149 秒(IQR = 111-201)(p = 0.002)。BACT 也被认为比标准技术更容易操作(中位数=2,IQR=1-3)(中位数=3,IQR=2-4;p=0.04)。BACT 的失败率为 1/10,而标准技术的失败率为 3/11(p=NS)。
本研究表明,BACT 比标准技术更快,并且在经验不足的麻醉绵羊提供者进行时,其失败率相似。