Struck M F, Hilbert-Carius P, Hossfeld B, Hinkelbein J, Bernhard M, Wurmb T
Klinik und Poliklinik für Anästhesiologie und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig (AöR), Leipzig, Deutschland.
Klinik für Anästhesiologie, Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Klinikum Bergmannstrost gGmbH, Halle (Saale), Deutschland.
Anaesthesist. 2017 Feb;66(2):100-108. doi: 10.1007/s00101-016-0258-0. Epub 2017 Jan 11.
The continuous monitoring of vital parameters and subsequent therapy belong to the core duties of anaesthetists during acute trauma resuscitation in the trauma room. Important procedures may include placement of arterial lines and central venous catheters (CVCs). Knowledge of indication, performance and localization of invasive catheterisation of trauma care in Germany is scarce.
After approval of the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine we conducted an online survey about arterial and central venous catheterisation of severely injured patients with consideration of common practice used by anaesthetists in German trauma rooms. Data are presented in a descriptive manner.
Of 843 hospitals invited for the survey, 72 (8.5%) had complete and valid data and were thus included in the analysis. Of these, 47% were supra-regional (level 1) trauma centres, 38% regional trauma centres and 15% local trauma centres. The annual mean injury severity score (ISS) of admitted patients to these hospitals was 21 ± 10. In the trauma room, the responding hospitals place CVCs (49%) and arterial lines (59%) only in haemodynamically unstable patients, whereas 24% (CVC) and 39% (arterial line) do when pathological laboratory tests were confirmed. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) merely exist for placement of either arterial lines (25%) or CVCs (22%) in multiple trauma resuscitation. The decision to perform CVC or arterial line placement is usually (79%) at the discretion of the attending anaesthetist. The preferred anatomical access site for CVCs is the right internal jugular vein (46%) and for arterial lines the radial artery (without side preference) (57%), respectively. Of the responding hospitals, 49% prefer landmark-guided CVC-puncture (91% of arterial lines) instead of 43% using sonographic guidance (9% of arterial lines). Intravascular electrocardiography monitoring for CVC tip detection is used by 36%.
In Germany, medical indication and schedule of invasive vascular catheterisation of severely injured patients in the trauma room is rarely regulated by SOPs and often performed at the discretion of the attending trauma team. Sonographic assistance during vascular puncture and electrocardiography for CVC tip detection is not as common as in non-emergency anaesthesia. Further studies are required to explore the real necessity and safety of invasive vascular catheterisation in multiple trauma patients in order to improve trauma care.
在创伤室对急性创伤患者进行复苏时,持续监测生命体征参数并随后进行治疗是麻醉医生的核心职责。重要操作可能包括放置动脉导管和中心静脉导管(CVC)。在德国,关于创伤护理中侵入性导管插入术的适应证、操作及定位的知识较为匮乏。
经德国麻醉与重症医学学会批准,我们针对德国创伤室麻醉医生的常用做法,开展了一项关于重伤患者动脉和中心静脉导管插入术的在线调查。数据以描述性方式呈现。
在受邀参与调查的843家医院中,72家(8.5%)提供了完整且有效的数据,因此被纳入分析。其中,47%为区域以上(1级)创伤中心,38%为区域创伤中心,15%为当地创伤中心。这些医院收治患者的年平均损伤严重程度评分(ISS)为21±10。在创伤室,参与调查的医院仅在血流动力学不稳定的患者中放置CVC(49%)和动脉导管(59%),而在实验室检查结果异常时,放置CVC的比例为24%,放置动脉导管的比例为39%。在多发伤复苏中,仅存在放置动脉导管(25%)或CVC(22%)的标准操作流程(SOP)。进行CVC或动脉导管放置的决定通常(79%)由主治麻醉医生自行决定。CVC首选的解剖入路部位是右颈内静脉(46%),动脉导管首选的是桡动脉(无侧别偏好)(57%)。在参与调查的医院中,49%更倾向于采用体表标志引导的CVC穿刺(动脉导管为91%),而43%使用超声引导(动脉导管为9%)。36%的医院使用血管内心电图监测来检测CVC尖端位置。
在德国,创伤室重伤患者侵入性血管导管插入术的医学适应证和操作流程很少由SOP规定,且通常由主治创伤团队自行决定。血管穿刺时的超声辅助以及用于检测CVC尖端位置的心电图检查在非紧急麻醉中不如在紧急麻醉中常见。需要进一步研究以探讨多发伤患者侵入性血管导管插入术的实际必要性和安全性,从而改善创伤护理。