Suppr超能文献

颈动脉内膜切除术之前的延迟:实践的前瞻性审核。

Delay prior to expedited carotid endarterectomy: a prospective audit of practice.

机构信息

Department of Vascular Surgery, Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester, UK.

出版信息

Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2013 Oct;46(4):404-10. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2013.07.015. Epub 2013 Aug 21.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

To identify reasons for delay before carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in a reconfigured "fast-track" system where patients were admitted from the TIA (transient ischaemic attack) Clinic for urgent CEA.

METHODS

Prospective audit in 89 recently symptomatic patients.

RESULTS

Ten patients (11%) suffered recurrent symptoms between admission and surgery. Two strokes were sufficiently severe that CEA was cancelled. The median delay from index symptom to CEA was 8 days. 74/87 (85%) underwent CEA <14 days from the index symptom; 39/87 (45%) within 7 days. Forty-five (51%) were ready for CEA <24 hours of admission; 74 (83%) <72 hours. The most common reasons for delay to CEA were logistical, especially a failure to plan for access to weekend operating. Two-thirds of the Tuesday/Friday theatre lists that were reserved for urgent CEAs were actually used for CEA; 27 (33%) were not used for CEA but were utilized for another vascular procedure, and five (4%) were cancelled the day before and went unused.

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of patients (85%) underwent CEA <14 days from the index symptom, but 11% still suffered recurrent symptoms prior to surgery. Transferring patients directly from the TIA Clinic reduced overall delays, but Vascular Units adopting such an approach might then be vulnerable to criticisms regarding prolonged lengths of pre-operative in-patient stay while patients were worked up for theatre. Protected theatre lists both optimized (and delayed) access to CEA, but the most important cause of delay was that we had not planned for weekend operating using specialist anaesthetic and theatre staff.

摘要

目的

在重新配置的“快速通道”系统中,患者从短暂性脑缺血发作(TIA)诊所转入接受紧急颈动脉内膜切除术(CEA),确定CEA 延迟的原因。

方法

对 89 名近期出现症状的患者进行前瞻性审核。

结果

10 名患者(11%)在入院和手术之间出现复发症状。2 例中风严重,CEA 被取消。从症状发作到 CEA 的中位数时间为 8 天。74/87(85%)名患者在症状发作后 14 天内行 CEA;39/87(45%)名患者在 7 天内行 CEA。45(51%)名患者入院后 24 小时内可进行 CEA;74(83%)名患者在 72 小时内行 CEA。CEA 延迟的最常见原因是后勤方面的,特别是周末手术计划失败。为紧急 CEA 保留的周二/周五手术列表中,实际上有三分之二用于 CEA;27(33%)个手术列表未用于 CEA,但用于另一种血管手术,5(4%)个手术列表被取消且未使用。

结论

绝大多数患者(85%)在症状发作后 14 天内行 CEA,但仍有 11%的患者在手术前出现复发症状。将患者直接从 TIA 诊所转移减少了整体延迟,但采用这种方法的血管单位可能会受到批评,因为在为手术做准备时,患者的住院时间延长。保护手术列表既优化了(也延迟了)CEA 的接入,但延迟的最重要原因是我们没有计划在周末使用专业麻醉和手术室人员进行手术。

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