Department for Anesthesia, Surgical Intensive Care, Prehospital Emergency Medicine and Pain Therapy, University Hospital Basel, Basel Switzerland.
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2013 Dec 4;21:83. doi: 10.1186/1757-7241-21-83.
Inappropriately cuffed tracheal tubes can lead to inadequate ventilation or silent aspiration, or to serious tracheal damage. Cuff pressures are of particular importance during aeromedical transport as they increase due to decreased atmospheric pressure at flight level. We hypothesised, that cuff pressures are frequently too high in emergency and critically ill patients but are dependent on providers' professional background.
Tracheal cuff pressures in patients intubated before arrival of a helicopter-based rescue team were prospectively recorded during a 12-month period. Information about the method used for initial cuff pressure assessment, profession of provider and time since intubation was collected by interview during patient handover. Indications for helicopter missions were either Intensive Care Unit (ICU) transports or emergency transfers. ICU transports were between ICUs of two hospitals. Emergency transfers were either evacuation from the scene or transfer from an emergency department to a higher facility.
This study included 101 patients scheduled for aeromedical transport. Median cuff pressure measured at handover was 45 (25.0/80.0) cmH2O; range, 8-120 cmH2O. There was no difference between patient characteristics and tracheal tube-size or whether anaesthesia personnel or non-anaesthesia personnel inflated the cuff (30 (24.8/70.0) cmH2O vs. 50 (28.0/90.0) cmH2O); p = 0.113.With regard to mission type (63 patients underwent an emergency transfer, 38 patients an ICU transport), median cuff pressure was different: 58 (30.0/100.0) cmH2O in emergency transfers vs. 30 (20.0/45.8) cmH2O in inter-ICU transports; p < 0.001. For cuff pressure assessment by the intubating team, a manometer had been applied in 2 of 59 emergency transfers and in 20 of 34 inter-ICU transports (method was unknown for 4 cases each). If a manometer was used, median cuff pressure was 27 (20.0/30.0) cmH2O, if not 70 (47.3/102.8) cmH2O; p < 0.001.
Cuff pressures in the pre-hospital setting and in intensive care units are often too high. Interestingly, there is no significant difference between non-anaesthesia and anaesthesia personnel. Acceptable cuff pressures are best achieved when a cuff pressure manometer has been used. This method seems to be the only feasible one and is recommended for general use.
不合适的气管导管套囊充气会导致通气不足或无声吸入,或严重的气管损伤。在航空医疗转运中,套囊压力尤其重要,因为在飞行高度,气压会降低。我们假设,在急诊和危重症患者中,套囊压力往往过高,但这取决于提供者的专业背景。
在直升机救援团队到达之前,对接受气管插管的患者的气管导管套囊压力进行前瞻性记录。在患者交接期间,通过访谈收集有关初始套囊压力评估方法、提供者的专业和插管后时间的信息。直升机任务的指征为重症监护病房(ICU)转运或紧急转院。ICU 转运在两家医院的 ICU 之间进行。紧急转院要么是从现场撤离,要么是从急诊科转往更高一级的医疗机构。
这项研究纳入了 101 名计划进行航空医疗转运的患者。交接时测量的套囊压力中位数为 45(25.0/80.0)cmH2O;范围,8-120 cmH2O。患者特征、气管导管大小、麻醉人员或非麻醉人员充气套囊之间无差异(30(24.8/70.0)cmH2O 与 50(28.0/90.0)cmH2O);p=0.113。关于任务类型(63 例为紧急转院,38 例为 ICU 转运),套囊压力不同:紧急转院时为 58(30.0/100.0)cmH2O,ICU 转运时为 30(20.0/45.8)cmH2O;p<0.001。对于插管团队进行的套囊压力评估,在 59 例紧急转院中有 2 例使用了压力计,在 34 例 ICU 转运中有 20 例使用了压力计(4 例方法未知)。如果使用压力计,套囊压力中位数为 27(20.0/30.0)cmH2O,否则为 70(47.3/102.8)cmH2O;p<0.001。
在院前环境和重症监护病房中,套囊压力往往过高。有趣的是,非麻醉和麻醉人员之间没有显著差异。当使用套囊压力计时,可获得可接受的套囊压力。这种方法似乎是唯一可行的方法,建议常规使用。