Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Innsbruck Medical University, Anichstrasse 35, 6020 Innsbruck, Austria.
Resuscitation. 2011 Jun;82(6):740-2. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.01.025. Epub 2011 Mar 10.
In a model of severe simulated upper airway haemorrhage, we compared two techniques of performing endotracheal intubation: (1) suctioning via the endotracheal tube during laryngoscopy with subsequently advancing the endotracheal tube, and (2) the standard intubation strategy with performing laryngoscopy, and performing suction with subsequently advancing the endotracheal tube.
Forty-one emergency medical technicians intubated the trachea of a manikin with severe simulated airway haemorrhage using each technique in random order.
There was no significant difference in the number of oesophageal intubations between suctioning via the tube and the standard intubation strategy [8/41 (20%) vs. 6/41 (15%); P = 0.688], but suctioning via the endotracheal tube needed significantly more time [median (IQR, CI 95%): 42 (20, 39-60) vs. 33 (15, 35-48)s; P = 0.015].
Suctioning via the endotracheal tube showed no benefit regarding the number of oesophageal intubations and needed more time when compared to the standard intubation strategy.
在严重模拟上呼吸道出血模型中，我们比较了两种进行气管内插管的技术：（1）在喉镜检查期间通过气管内管进行抽吸，随后推进气管内管，以及（2）进行喉镜检查，然后通过气管内管进行抽吸的标准插管策略。
41 名急诊医疗技术员使用每种技术以随机顺序对模拟严重气道出血的人体模型进行气管插管。
通过管抽吸与标准插管策略之间的食管插管次数无显著差异[8/41（20%）比 6/41（15%）；P = 0.688]，但通过气管内管抽吸需要的时间明显更长[中位数（IQR，95%CI）：42（20，39-60）比 33（15，35-48）s；P = 0.015]。
与标准插管策略相比，通过气管内管抽吸在食管插管次数方面没有优势，并且需要更多的时间。
