Stanford/Kaiser Emergency Medicine Residency Program, Stanford, CA.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Am J Emerg Med. 2014 May;32(5):452-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2014.01.002. Epub 2014 Jan 15.
Neuromuscular paralysis without sedation is an avoidable medical error with negative psychologic and potentially physiologic consequences. We determine the frequency of long-acting paralysis without concurrent sedation among patients intubated in our emergency department (ED) or before arrival.
We performed a retrospective cohort study from July 2007 to August 2009. We chose this time interval because in 2006, our institution developed a multidisciplinary plan designed to improve care of intubated patients. We identified all mechanically ventilated patients using billing codes. We reviewed all records to identify use of long-acting neuromuscular blocking agents. We captured data on patient characteristics and location of intubation, using a standardized data collection form. We report bivariate risk ratios to quantify associations with lack of concurrent sedation. A priori, we defined concurrent sedation as administration of any sedative during the 60 minutes preceding and the 15 minutes after administration of the long-acting paralytic.
Over the 26-month period of study, 292 patients received a long-acting paralytic. Of the 212 available for analysis, 39 (18%) did not receive concurrent sedation. Every decade of age increased the risk of paralysis without concurrent sedation by 1.2 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.4). Paralysis for intubation (vs for transport or ventilation management) increased the odds of no sedation by 2.1 (95% CI, 1.2-3.7). No other covariates predicted nonsedation.
Absence of concurrent sedation was common among patients receiving long-acting neuromuscular paralysis before arrival or at our ED, despite implementation of a guideline to improve practice.
在没有镇静的情况下使用神经肌肉阻滞剂是一种可以避免的医疗错误,会带来负面的心理影响,甚至可能产生生理影响。我们确定在我院急诊科(ED)插管或到达前未同时给予镇静药物的长时效神经肌肉阻滞剂的使用频率。
我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,时间区间为 2007 年 7 月至 2009 年 8 月。选择这段时间是因为在 2006 年,我们机构制定了一项多学科计划,旨在改善插管患者的护理。我们通过计费代码确定所有使用机械通气的患者。我们回顾了所有记录以确定长时效神经肌肉阻滞剂的使用情况。我们使用标准化数据收集表记录患者特征和插管位置的数据。我们报告双变量风险比来量化与缺乏同时镇静相关的关联。预先定义,我们将同时镇静定义为在给予长时效麻痹剂前的 60 分钟内和给予长时效麻痹剂后 15 分钟内给予任何镇静剂。
在 26 个月的研究期间,有 292 名患者接受了长时效神经肌肉阻滞剂。在可分析的 212 名患者中,有 39 名(18%)未接受同时镇静。每增加 10 岁,无同时镇静的风险增加 1.2 倍(95%置信区间[CI],1.1-1.4)。插管时使用(而非转运或通气管理时使用)麻痹剂会使无镇静的可能性增加 2.1 倍(95%CI,1.2-3.7)。没有其他协变量可预测无镇静。
尽管实施了一项旨在改善实践的指南,但在到达我院急诊科或在我院急诊科插管或到达前接受长时效神经肌肉阻滞剂的患者中,同时给予镇静药物的情况并不常见。