Walsh Ryan, Cookman Laura, Luerssen Emily
Department of Emergency Medicine, Madigan Army Medical Center, Tacoma, Washington, USA.
Emerg Med Australas. 2014 Oct;26(5):446-9. doi: 10.1111/1742-6723.12280. Epub 2014 Aug 26.
We sought to evaluate the success rate and time to endotracheal intubation by emergency medicine residents with stylet reinforced endotracheal tube (ETT-S) versus intubation with a gum elastic bougie (GEB) in simulated easy and difficult airways on a cadaveric model.
The study was a prospective cross-over design using a cohort of 29 emergency medicine residents. A fresh frozen cadaver was used in either standard positioning to facilitate a Cormack Lehane Grade 1 laryngoscopy, or with a hard cervical collar applied a Cormack Lehane Grade 3 laryngoscopy. Each participant then intubated the cadaver in each setting. The primary end-point of our investigation was the time to intubation. Secondary end-points were: success rate of intubation, mean ratings by study participants of perceived ease of intubation for each intubation technique in each simulated degree of difficulty, and overall preference of intubation technique in each simulated degree of difficulty.
Mean time to intubation in all scenarios ranged from 28.8-116.6 s. Time to intubation was significantly different only when comparing Grade 3 ETT-S to Grade 3 GEB. There was no significant difference in success rate when comparing Grade 1 ETT-S to Grade 1 GEB (P = 0.99) nor Grade 3 ETT-S to Grade 3 GEB (P = 0.21).
Time to intubation in a simulated grade 3 view was significantly longer in the GEB group versus the ETT-S group. Although the differences in success rates were not statistically significant, there was a trend toward more successful intubations with the GEB in the simulated grade 3 view.
我们试图评估急诊医学住院医师在尸体模型上模拟的简易气道和困难气道中,使用带有管芯加强型气管内导管(ETT-S)进行气管插管的成功率和时间,与使用弹性橡胶探条(GEB)插管的情况进行对比。
本研究采用前瞻性交叉设计,纳入29名急诊医学住院医师。使用一具新鲜冷冻尸体,要么采用标准体位以利于直接喉镜检查(Cormack Lehane 1级),要么佩戴硬颈托以进行直接喉镜检查(Cormack Lehane 3级)。然后,每位参与者在每种情况下对尸体进行插管。我们调查的主要终点是插管时间。次要终点包括:插管成功率、研究参与者对每种模拟难度程度下每种插管技术的插管难易程度的平均评分,以及每种模拟难度程度下插管技术的总体偏好。
在所有场景中,平均插管时间为28.8 - 116.6秒。仅在比较3级ETT-S与3级GEB时,插管时间存在显著差异。比较1级ETT-S与1级GEB(P = 0.99)以及3级ETT-S与3级GEB(P = 0.21)时,成功率无显著差异。
在模拟的3级视野中,GEB组的插管时间明显长于ETT-S组。尽管成功率的差异无统计学意义,但在模拟的3级视野中,GEB插管成功的趋势更明显。