Suppr超能文献

单纯神经肌肉阻滞与快速顺序插管在紧急气道管理中的比较:一项多中心前瞻性研究分析

A comparison of emergency airway management between neuromuscular blockades alone and rapid sequence intubation: an analysis of multicenter prospective study.

作者信息

Sato Nobuhiro, Hagiwara Yusuke, Watase Hiroko, Hasegawa Kohei

机构信息

Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Niigata City General Hospital 463-7, Shumoku, Chuo-ku, Niigata, 950-1197, Japan.

Department of Pediatric Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Tokyo Metropolitan Children's Medical Center, Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan.

出版信息

BMC Res Notes. 2017 Jan 3;10(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s13104-016-2338-2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Although airway management with neuromuscular blockade (NMB) alone is discouraged in the emergency department (ED), our previous study demonstrated that many patients were intubated using NMBs alone without sedatives. To refute this practice, we sought to compare the intubation success and adverse event rates between NMBs only and rapid sequence intubation (RSI).

METHODS

This is a secondary analysis of the data from a prospective observational study of ED patients in 13 hospitals who underwent emergency airway management from April 2010 to August 2012. The primary outcome was intubation success rate on first attempt. The secondary outcomes were the intubation success rate in ≤2 attempts and the intubation-related adverse event rate. We compared these outcomes between intubation attempts using NMB alone and RSI. We fit multivariable logistic regression models adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, weight, primary indication for intubation, and training level of intubators).

RESULTS

Overall, 852 patients were eligible for this analysis, with 114 (13%) intubated with NMB alone and 738 (87%) with RSI. Between the NMB-alone and RSI groups, no significant differences were observed in the success rate on the first attempt (70 vs. 73%; P = 0.48) or in ≤2 attempts (89 vs. 91%; P = 0.46), or in the adverse event rate (11 vs. 12%; P = 0.58). Similarly, after adjusting for confounders, no significant differences were observed in any of these outcomes (all P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In this analysis of data from a large multicenter study of ED patients, we found no superior effectiveness of intubation with NMB alone when compared to RSI. Our data lend significant support to the concept that intubation with NMB alone should be avoided in the ED.

摘要

背景

尽管急诊科不提倡单独使用神经肌肉阻滞剂(NMB)进行气道管理,但我们之前的研究表明,许多患者仅使用NMB而未使用镇静剂就进行了插管。为了反驳这种做法,我们试图比较单独使用NMB与快速顺序诱导插管(RSI)的插管成功率和不良事件发生率。

方法

这是对2010年4月至2012年8月在13家医院接受紧急气道管理的急诊科患者进行的前瞻性观察研究数据的二次分析。主要结局是首次尝试插管成功率。次要结局是≤2次尝试的插管成功率和插管相关不良事件发生率。我们比较了单独使用NMB和RSI进行插管尝试之间的这些结局。我们拟合了多变量逻辑回归模型,对潜在混杂因素(年龄、性别、体重、插管的主要指征和插管人员的培训水平)进行了调整。

结果

总体而言,852例患者符合本分析条件,其中114例(13%)仅使用NMB进行插管,738例(87%)使用RSI进行插管。在单独使用NMB组和RSI组之间,首次尝试成功率(70%对73%;P = 0.48)、≤2次尝试成功率(89%对91%;P = 0.46)或不良事件发生率(11%对12%;P = 0.58)均未观察到显著差异。同样,在对混杂因素进行调整后,这些结局中的任何一项均未观察到显著差异(所有P > 0.05)。

结论

在这项对大量急诊科患者多中心研究数据的分析中,我们发现与RSI相比,单独使用NMB插管没有更高的有效性。我们的数据为急诊科应避免单独使用NMB插管这一概念提供了有力支持。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/cde0/5216597/bcd1dd237387/13104_2016_2338_Fig1_HTML.jpg

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验