Suppr超能文献

在急诊科,对于首次插管失败后的抢救,C-MAC®视频喉镜优于直接喉镜。

The C-MAC® video laryngoscope is superior to the direct laryngoscope for the rescue of failed first-attempt intubations in the emergency department.

作者信息

Sakles John C, Mosier Jarrod M, Patanwala Asad E, Dicken John M, Kalin Leah, Javedani Parisa P

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tucson, Arizona.

Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, University of Arizona College of Pharmacy, Tucson, Arizona.

出版信息

J Emerg Med. 2015 Mar;48(3):280-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2014.10.007. Epub 2014 Dec 12.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of the C-MAC® video laryngoscope (CMAC) to the direct laryngoscope (DL) when used to rescue a failed first attempt intubation in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected on all patients intubated in an academic ED center over a five-year period from February 1, 2009 to January 31, 2014 when both the CMAC and the DL were available. Following each intubation the operator completed a continuous quality improvement (CQI) form documenting patient, operator and intubation characteristics. All orotracheal intubations attempted by emergency physicians (EPs) on adult patients with a failed first intubation attempt, and in which the CMAC or the DL was used for the second attempt, were included. The primary outcome was successful intubation on the second attempt using either the CMAC or the DL. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to adjust for potential confounders.

RESULTS

During the five-year study period, there were 460 adult orotracheal intubation attempts by EPs which were not successful on the first attempt. In 398 (86.5%) of these cases the same operator performed the second attempt. The CMAC was utilized for the second attempt in 141 cases and was successful in 116 (82.3%; 95% CI 75.0%-88.2%) and the DL was utilized in 94 cases and was successful in 58 (61.7%; 95% CI 51.1%-71.5%). In a multivariate logistic regression analysis the CMAC was associated with an increased odds (adjusted OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.9-6.7) of a second attempt success compared to the DL.

CONCLUSIONS

After a failed first intubation attempt in the ED, regardless of the initial device used, the CMAC was more successful than the DL when used for the second attempt. This suggests that the CMAC is the preferred rescue device after an initial intubation attempt in the ED fails.

摘要

目的

比较在急诊科(ED)首次插管失败后进行抢救时,C-MAC®视频喉镜(CMAC)与直接喉镜(DL)的有效性。

方法

前瞻性收集2009年2月1日至2014年1月31日这五年期间,在一家学术性急诊科中心进行插管的所有患者的数据,当时CMAC和DL均可用。每次插管后,操作人员填写一份持续质量改进(CQI)表格,记录患者、操作人员和插管特征。纳入所有由急诊医师(EP)对首次插管失败的成年患者进行的经口气管插管尝试,且第二次尝试使用CMAC或DL的情况。主要结局是使用CMAC或DL第二次尝试插管成功。进行多因素逻辑回归分析以调整潜在的混杂因素。

结果

在五年研究期间,急诊医师进行了460次成年患者经口气管插管尝试,首次尝试均未成功。其中398例(86.5%)由同一名操作人员进行第二次尝试。141例第二次尝试使用CMAC,其中116例成功(82.3%;95%可信区间75.0%-88.2%);94例第二次尝试使用DL,其中58例成功(61.7%;95%可信区间51.1%-71.5%)。在多因素逻辑回归分析中,与DL相比,CMAC第二次尝试成功的几率增加(调整后的比值比为3.5;95%可信区间1.9-6.7)。

结论

在急诊科首次插管失败后,无论最初使用的设备如何,第二次尝试时CMAC比DL更成功。这表明在急诊科首次插管尝试失败后,CMAC是首选的抢救设备。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验