Sollid Stephen J M, Lossius Hans Morten, Søreide Eldar
Department of Research and Development, Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Drøbak, Norway.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2010 Jun 14;18:30. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-18-30.
Anaesthesiologists are airway management experts, which is one of the reasons why they serve as pre-hospital emergency physicians in many countries. However, limited data are available on the actual quality and safety of anaesthesiologist-managed pre-hospital endotracheal intubation (ETI). To explore whether the general indications for ETI are followed and what complications are recorded, we analysed the use of pre-hospital ETI in severely traumatised patients treated by anaesthesiologists in a Norwegian helicopter emergency medical service (HEMS).
A retrospective audit of prospectively registered data concerning patients with trauma as the primary diagnosis and a National Committee on Aeronautics score of 4 - 7 during the period of 1994-2005 from a mixed rural/urban Norwegian HEMS was performed.
Among the 1255 cases identified, 238 successful pre-hospital ETIs out of 240 attempts were recorded (99.2% success rate). Furthermore, we identified 47 patients for whom ETI was performed immediately upon arrival to the emergency department (ED). This group represented 16% of all intubated patients. Of the ETIs performed in the ED, 43 patients had an initial Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) < 9. Compared to patients who underwent ETI in the ED, patients who underwent pre-hospital ETI had significantly lower median GCS (3 (3-6) vs. 6 (4-8)), lower revised trauma scores (RTS) (3.8 (1.8-5.9) vs. 5.0 (4.1-6.0)), longer mean scene times (23 +/- 13 vs. 11 +/- 11 min) and longer mean transport times (22 +/- 16 vs. 13 +/- 14 min). The audit also revealed that very few airway management complications had been recorded.
We found a very high success rate of pre-hospital ETI and few recorded complications in the studied anaesthesiologist-manned HEMS. However, a substantial number of trauma patients were intubated first on arrival in the ED. This delay may represent a quality problem. Therefore, we believe that more studies are needed to clarify the reasons for and possible clinical consequences of the delayed ETIs.
麻醉医生是气道管理专家,这也是他们在许多国家担任院前急救医生的原因之一。然而,关于麻醉医生管理的院前气管插管(ETI)的实际质量和安全性的数据有限。为了探究ETI的一般适应症是否得到遵循以及记录了哪些并发症,我们分析了挪威直升机紧急医疗服务(HEMS)中麻醉医生治疗的严重创伤患者的院前ETI使用情况。
对1994 - 2005年期间挪威城乡混合的HEMS中以创伤为主要诊断且国家航空委员会评分为4 - 7分的患者的前瞻性注册数据进行回顾性审计。
在1255例确诊病例中,240次尝试中有238次院前ETI成功(成功率99.2%)。此外,我们确定了47例患者在抵达急诊科(ED)后立即进行了ETI。该组占所有插管患者的16%。在ED进行的ETI中,43例患者初始格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)<9分。与在ED接受ETI的患者相比,接受院前ETI的患者中位GCS显著更低(3(3 - 6)对6(4 - 8)),修正创伤评分(RTS)更低(3.8(1.8 - 5.9)对5.0(4.1 - 6.0)),平均现场时间更长(23±13对11±11分钟)且平均转运时间更长(22±16对13±14分钟)。审计还显示记录的气道管理并发症极少。
我们发现在所研究的由麻醉医生配备人员的HEMS中,院前ETI成功率非常高且记录的并发症极少。然而,相当数量的创伤患者在抵达ED时才首次插管。这种延迟可能代表一个质量问题。因此,我们认为需要更多研究来阐明延迟ETI的原因及可能的临床后果。