• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

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

比较标准气管插管和声门上气道的院前插入成功率和插入时间。

Comparison of prehospital insertion success rates and time to insertion between standard endotracheal intubation and a supraglottic airway.

机构信息

Regions Hospital EMS, St. Paul, MN, United States.

出版信息

Resuscitation. 2011 Dec;82(12):1529-36. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.07.009. Epub 2011 Jul 18.

DOI:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.07.009
PMID:21763247
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare paramedic insertion success rates and time to insertion between standard ETI and a supraglottc airway device (King LTS-D™) in patients needing advanced airway management.

METHODS

Between June 2008 and June 2009, consented paramedics from 4 EMS systems performed ETI or placed a King LTS-D according to a predetermined randomization calendar. Data collection occurred following each placement via telephone. Placement success (ability to ventilate to chest rise, absence of gastric sounds, presence of bilateral lung sounds, and when applicable, quantitative end-tidal CO(2) reading) was compared between treatment groups. Time to ventilation (time from airway device in hand ready to place to time of first successful ventilation) was also compared.

RESULTS

A total of 213 patients in need of advanced airway management were treated during the study period, with 9 patients excluded from the analysis. The remaining 204 placements by 110 of the 272 consented paramedics were analyzed (median placements per paramedic=1; range=1-7). The overall placement success rate was virtually equal across the two groups (ETI=80.2%, King LTS-D=80.5%; p=0.97). The median time to placement between ETI and the King LTS-D was also not significantly different (ETI=19.5s vs. King LTS-D=20.0s; z=-0.25; p=0.80).

CONCLUSION

In this study, no differences in placement success rate or time to insertion were detected between the King LTS-D and ETI.

摘要

目的

比较标准气管插管(ETI)和 King LTS-D 声门上气道装置在需要高级气道管理的患者中插管成功率和插管时间。

方法

2008 年 6 月至 2009 年 6 月期间,4 个 EMS 系统的同意参与的护理人员根据预定的随机时间表进行 ETI 或放置 King LTS-D。放置后通过电话进行数据收集。比较两组治疗之间的放置成功率(能够进行通气到胸廓起伏、胃音缺失、双侧肺音存在以及在适用时定量呼气末 CO2 读数)。比较通气时间(从气道设备准备好到首次成功通气的时间)。

结果

在研究期间,共有 213 名需要高级气道管理的患者接受了治疗,其中 9 名患者被排除在分析之外。分析了 110 名同意护理人员中的 204 次放置(每名护理人员的中位数放置次数=1;范围=1-7)。两组的总体放置成功率几乎相等(ETI=80.2%,King LTS-D=80.5%;p=0.97)。ETI 和 King LTS-D 之间的放置时间中位数也没有显著差异(ETI=19.5s 与 King LTS-D=20.0s;z=-0.25;p=0.80)。

结论

在这项研究中,King LTS-D 和 ETI 之间在放置成功率或插入时间方面没有差异。

相似文献

1
Comparison of prehospital insertion success rates and time to insertion between standard endotracheal intubation and a supraglottic airway.比较标准气管插管和声门上气道的院前插入成功率和插入时间。
Resuscitation. 2011 Dec;82(12):1529-36. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.07.009. Epub 2011 Jul 18.
2
King LT-D use by urban basic life support first responders as the primary airway device for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.金(King)LT-D 用作城市基本生命支持第一反应者的主要气道设备,用于院外心搏骤停。
Resuscitation. 2011 Dec;82(12):1525-8. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2011.06.036. Epub 2011 Jul 12.
3
Supraglottic airway device use as a primary airway during rapid sequence intubation.在快速顺序诱导插管期间,使用声门上气道装置作为主要气道。
Air Med J. 2013 Mar-Apr;32(2):93-7. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2012.06.008.
4
Paramedic King Laryngeal Tube airway insertion versus endotracheal intubation in simulated pediatric respiratory arrest.院前急救医师行 King 喉管与气管插管在小儿模拟呼吸骤停中的应用比较。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2012 Apr-Jun;16(2):284-8. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2011.640762. Epub 2012 Jan 9.
5
A comparison of the King-LT to endotracheal intubation and Combitube in a simulated difficult airway.在模拟困难气道中,将King-LT与气管插管及食管气管联合导管进行比较。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008 Jan-Mar;12(1):35-41. doi: 10.1080/10903120701710488.
6
Evaluation of the Storz CMAC®, Glidescope® GVL, AirTraq®, King LTS-D™, and direct laryngoscopy in a simulated difficult airway.在模拟困难气道中评估 Storz CMAC®、Glidescope® GVL、AirTraq®、King LTS-D™ 和直接喉镜。
Am J Emerg Med. 2013 Mar;31(3):589-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2012.10.001. Epub 2013 Jan 21.
7
Out-of-hospital airway management by paramedics and emergency physicians using laryngeal tubes.急救员和急诊医师使用喉管进行院外气道管理。
Resuscitation. 2010 Mar;81(3):323-6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.007. Epub 2009 Dec 16.
8
Emergency airway management in trauma patients using laryngeal tube suction.创伤患者使用喉管吸引的紧急气道管理。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2011 Jul-Sep;15(3):347-50. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2011.561405. Epub 2011 Apr 26.
9
The laryngeal tube device: a simple and timely adjunct to airway management.喉管装置:气道管理的一种简单且及时的辅助工具。
Am J Emerg Med. 2007 Mar;25(3):263-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2006.03.018.
10
Comparison of success rates between two video laryngoscope systems used in a prehospital clinical trial.院前临床试验中使用的两种视频喉镜系统成功率的比较。
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014 Apr-Jun;18(2):231-8. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2013.851309. Epub 2014 Jan 8.

引用本文的文献

1
Usability testing of a blind intubation device for intubation novices: a randomized crossover simulation study.针对插管新手的盲插装置可用性测试:一项随机交叉模拟研究。
Clin Exp Emerg Med. 2023 Jun;10(2):181-190. doi: 10.15441/ceem.22.370. Epub 2023 Feb 14.
2
Perception and success rate of using advanced airway management by hospital-based paramedics in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.沙特阿拉伯王国医院急救人员使用高级气道管理的认知与成功率
Br Paramed J. 2021 Dec 1;6(3):24-30. doi: 10.29045/14784726.2021.12.6.3.24.
3
Effect of a Strategy of Initial Laryngeal Tube Insertion vs Endotracheal Intubation on 72-Hour Survival in Adults With Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
一项关于初始喉管插入与气管插管对院外心脏骤停成人 72 小时生存率影响的随机临床试验。
JAMA. 2018 Aug 28;320(8):769-778. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.7044.
4
[Performance of prehospital emergency anesthesia and airway management : An online survey].[院前急救麻醉与气道管理的实施情况:一项在线调查]
Anaesthesist. 2018 Sep;67(9):654-663. doi: 10.1007/s00101-018-0466-x. Epub 2018 Jun 29.
5
Insertion Success of the Laryngeal Tube in Emergency Airway Management.喉罩在紧急气道管理中的置入成功率。
Biomed Res Int. 2016;2016:3619159. doi: 10.1155/2016/3619159. Epub 2016 Aug 24.
6
Determinants of Success and Failure in Prehospital Endotracheal Intubation.院前气管插管成败的决定因素
West J Emerg Med. 2016 Sep;17(5):640-7. doi: 10.5811/westjem.2016.6.29969. Epub 2016 Jul 26.
7
Design and implementation of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Pragmatic Airway Resuscitation Trial (PART).复苏结果联盟实用气道复苏试验(PART)的设计与实施
Resuscitation. 2016 Apr;101:57-64. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2016.01.012. Epub 2016 Feb 2.
8
Prehospital airway management using the laryngeal tube. An emergency department point of view.使用喉管进行院前气道管理。急诊科视角。
Anaesthesist. 2014 Jul;63(7):589-96. doi: 10.1007/s00101-014-2348-1.
9
Advances in prehospital airway management.院前气道管理的进展。
Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci. 2014 Jan;4(1):57-64. doi: 10.4103/2229-5151.128014.
10
Evaluation of airway management associated hands-off time during cardiopulmonary resuscitation: a randomised manikin follow-up study.心肺复苏期间气道管理相关脱手时间的评估:一项随机模拟人体后续研究。
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013 Feb 25;21:10. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-21-10.