Department of Emergency Medicine, Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.
J Investig Med. 2011 Dec;59(8):1263-7. doi: 10.2130/JIM.0b013e31822ffc02.
There is a dearth of literature about the safety and practicality of intubation performed by an internal medicine (IM) or any other nonanesthesia, nonemergency physician.
The objectives of the study were to describe abbreviated airway management training guidelines for IM physicians staffing the emergency department and to compare the success rates between intubations performed by anesthesia and IM physicians, respectively.
In this study, 272 consecutive out-of-operating room intubations performed by anesthesia and IM physicians were evaluated after creating and implementing an abbreviated intubation training protocol.
Of 165 intubations attempted by IM physicians and 107 intubations attempted by the anesthesia service, the rates of successful intubation were 93% and 99%, respectively (P = 0.02). There were no other statistically significant differences in outcomes.
Procedurally oriented IM fellows could provide a temporary solution to hospitals that currently do not have the resources to provide full-time, in-house anesthesiology or emergency physicians for management of the emergent airway.
关于内科医生或任何其他非麻醉、非紧急医生进行插管的安全性和实用性,文献匮乏。
本研究的目的是描述为急诊室配备的内科医生进行简化气道管理培训的指导方针,并分别比较麻醉医生和内科医生插管的成功率。
在这项研究中,在创建和实施简化插管培训方案后,评估了麻醉医生和内科医生进行的 272 例非手术室插管。
在 165 次由内科医生尝试的插管和 107 次由麻醉科医生尝试的插管中,插管成功率分别为 93%和 99%(P=0.02)。在其他结果方面没有统计学上的显著差异。
以程序为导向的内科住院医师可为目前没有资源提供全职、内部麻醉师或急诊医师来管理紧急气道的医院提供临时解决方案。