Suppr超能文献

术前气道评估缺乏全国性共识。

Lack of national consensus in preoperative airway assessment.

作者信息

Nørskov Anders K, Rosenstock Charlotte V, Lundstrøm Lars H

出版信息

Dan Med J. 2016 Oct;63(10).

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Difficult airway management is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Several preoperative risk factors associated with airway management difficulties have been proposed; however, no clear guideline for airway assessments exists. We therefore hypothesised that Danish airway assessment was lacking uniformity. We aimed to examine whether multivariable risk assessment tools and predictors for difficult intubation and mask ventilation were used systematically.

METHODS

Heads of anaesthesia departments were sent a six-question survey at the beginning of 2012. We asked if systematic risk assessment tools, particularly the Simplified Airway Risk Index (SARI), and predictors for difficult intubation and mask ventilation were used. Additionally, we asked if any risk factors were pre-printed on the anaesthesia record.

RESULTS

In all, 29 of 31 (94%) departments responded. The SARI was implemented in 8 of 29 (28%, 95% confidence interval (CI): 15-46%) departments with major regional differences. There was no significant association between using the SARI and a reduced number of unanticipated difficult intubation (p = 0.06). Mallampati classification (95.2%, 95% CI: 77.3-99.2%), history of airway management difficulties (85.7%, 95% CI: 65.4-95.0%), ability to prognath (81.0%, 95% CI: 60.0-92.3%) and neck mobility (81.0%, 95% CI: 60.0-92.3%) were the main predictors registered.

CONCLUSION

We found considerable inter-departmental variance in the standards employed for airway assessment and no uniform pattern in the registration of risk factors for airway management difficulties. Better prediction of difficult intubation could not be detected in departments that used the SARI.

FUNDING

none.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

not relevant.

摘要

引言

困难气道管理与发病和死亡风险增加相关。已提出几种与气道管理困难相关的术前危险因素;然而,目前尚无明确的气道评估指南。因此,我们推测丹麦的气道评估缺乏一致性。我们旨在研究多变量风险评估工具以及困难插管和面罩通气的预测指标是否得到系统应用。

方法

2012年初,我们向各麻醉科主任发送了一份包含六个问题的调查问卷。我们询问是否使用了系统风险评估工具,特别是简化气道风险指数(SARI),以及困难插管和面罩通气的预测指标。此外,我们询问麻醉记录上是否预先印出了任何危险因素。

结果

总共31个科室中有29个(94%)做出了回应。29个科室中有8个(28%,95%置信区间(CI):15 - 46%)实施了SARI,各主要地区存在显著差异。使用SARI与意外困难插管数量减少之间无显著关联(p = 0.06)。主要记录的预测指标包括Mallampati分级(95.2%,95%CI:77.3 - 99.2%)、气道管理困难史(85.7%,95%CI:65.4 - 95.0%)、前伸下颌能力(81.0%,95%CI:60.0 - 92.3%)和颈部活动度(81.0%,95%CI:60.0 - 92.3%)。

结论

我们发现气道评估所采用的标准在各科室之间存在很大差异,气道管理困难危险因素的记录没有统一模式。在使用SARI的科室中未发现对困难插管有更好的预测效果。

资金来源

无。

试验注册

不相关。

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