Martin Andrew B, Lingg Jim, Lubin Jeffrey S
Prehosp Emerg Care. 2016 Sep-Oct;20(5):657-61. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2016.1139218. Epub 2016 Mar 8.
Endotracheal intubation remains one of the most challenging skills in prehospital care. There is a minimal amount of data on the optimal technique to use when managing the airway of an entrapped patient. We hypothesized that use of a blindly placed device would result in both the shortest time to airway management and highest success rate.
A difficult airway manikin was placed in a cervical collar and secured upside down in an overturned vehicle. Experienced paramedics and prehospital registered nurses used four different methods to secure the airway: direct laryngoscopy, digital intubation, King LT-D, and CMAC video laryngoscopy. Each participant was given three opportunities to secure the airway using each technique in random order. A study investigator timed each attempt and confirmed successful placement, which was determined upon inflation of the manikin's lungs. Intubation success rates were analyzed using a general estimating equations model to account for repeated measures and a linear mixed effects model for average time.
Twenty-two prehospital providers participated in the study. The one-pass success rate for the King LT-D was significantly higher than direct laryngoscopy (OR 0.048, CI 0.006-0.351, p < 0.01) and digital intubation (OR 0.040, CI 0.005-0.297, p < 0.01). However, there was no statistical difference between the one-pass success rate of the King LT-D and CMAC video laryngoscopy (OR 0.302, 95% CI 0.026-3.44, p = 0.33). The one-pass median placement time of the King LT-D (22 seconds, IQR 17-26) was significantly lower (p < 0.001) than direct laryngoscopy (60 seconds, IQR 42-75), digital intubation (38 seconds, IQR 26-74), and the CMAC (51 seconds, IQR 43-76).
In this study, while the King LT-D offered the quickest airway placement, success rates were not significantly greater than intubation using the CMAC video laryngoscope. Intubation using direct laryngoscopy and digital intubation were less successful and took more time. Use of a blindly placed device or a video laryngoscope may provide the best avenues for airway management of entrapped patients.
气管插管仍然是院前急救中最具挑战性的技能之一。关于处理被困患者气道时最佳技术的数据极少。我们假设使用盲插设备将能实现最短的气道管理时间和最高的成功率。
将一个困难气道人体模型置于颈托中,并倒置固定在一辆翻倒的车辆内。经验丰富的护理人员和院前注册护士使用四种不同方法确保气道安全:直接喉镜检查、手指引导插管、King LT-D导管和CMAC视频喉镜检查。每位参与者有三次机会,以随机顺序使用每种技术确保气道安全。一名研究调查员记录每次尝试的时间,并确认插管成功,这通过人体模型肺部充气来确定。使用广义估计方程模型分析插管成功率以考虑重复测量因素,并使用线性混合效应模型分析平均时间。
22名院前急救人员参与了该研究。King LT-D导管的一次插管成功率显著高于直接喉镜检查(比值比0.048,可信区间0.006 - 0.351,p < 0.01)和手指引导插管(比值比0.040,可信区间0.005 - 0.297,p < 0.01)。然而,King LT-D导管的一次插管成功率与CMAC视频喉镜检查之间无统计学差异(比值比0.302,95%可信区间0.026 - 3.44,p = 0.33)。King LT-D导管的一次插管中位放置时间(22秒,四分位间距17 - 26)显著低于(p < 0.001)直接喉镜检查(60秒,四分位间距42 - 75)、手指引导插管(38秒,四分位间距26 - 74)和CMAC视频喉镜检查(51秒,四分位间距43 - 76)。
在本研究中,虽然King LT-D导管实现了最快的气道放置,但成功率并不显著高于使用CMAC视频喉镜进行的插管。直接喉镜检查和手指引导插管的成功率较低且耗时更长。使用盲插设备或视频喉镜可能为被困患者的气道管理提供最佳途径。