Department of Emergency Medicine, San Antonio Military Medical Center, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, TX, United States.
US Air Force En Route Care Research Center 59th MDW/ST, Chief Scientist's Office -US Army Institute of Surgical Research, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, TX, United States; Department of Emergency Medicine, San Antonio Military Medical Center, JBSA Ft. Sam Houston, TX, United States.
Am J Emerg Med. 2018 Jun;36(6):1032-1035. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2018.02.007. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
Analysis of modern military conflicts suggests that airway compromise remains the second leading cause of preventable death of combat fatalities. This study compares outcomes of combat casualties that received prehospital airway interventions, specifically bag valve mask (BVM) ventilation, cricothyrotomy, and supraglottic airway (SGA) placement. The goal is to compare the effectiveness of airway management strategies used in the military pre-hospital setting.
This retrospective chart review of 1267 US Army medical evacuation patient care records, compared outcomes of casualties that received prehospital advanced airway interventions. The patients consisted of US military injured in Operation Enduring Freedom January 2011-March 2014. Compared outcomes consisted of vent-, ICU-, and hospital-free days.
Those with SGA placement experienced fewer vent-free days, ICU-free days, and hospital-free days compared to BVM and cricothyrotomy patients. The groups did not significantly differ in rates of 30-day survival. The odds for survival were not significantly higher for BVM versus SGA patients (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.2-9.8), cricothyrotomy versus SGA patients (OR 3.9, 95% CI 0.6-24.9), or cricothyrotomy versus BVM patients (OR 2.7, 95% CI 0.5-13.8) in a logistic regression model adjusting for GCS.
This study supports prehospital BVM ventilation as a possible alternative to cricothyrotomy as there was no difference in measured outcomes between the groups. It further cautions against SGA use in the prehospital combat setting due to higher morbidity demonstrated by fewer ventilator, hospital, and ICU free days than those receiving cricothyrotomy or BVM ventilation. There was no difference in 30-day survival between the groups.
对现代军事冲突的分析表明,气道阻塞仍然是导致可预防的战斗死亡的第二大主要原因。本研究比较了接受院前气道干预(特别是球囊面罩通气、环甲膜切开术和声门上气道(SGA)置管)的战斗伤员的结果。目的是比较军事院前环境中使用的气道管理策略的效果。
这是对 1267 名美国陆军医疗后送患者护理记录的回顾性图表审查,比较了接受院前高级气道干预的伤员的结果。这些患者是 2011 年 1 月至 2014 年 3 月在“持久自由行动”中受伤的美国军人。比较结果包括无通气、无 ICU 和无住院天数。
与 BVM 和环甲膜切开术患者相比,SGA 置管患者的无通气天数、无 ICU 天数和无住院天数更少。这三组在 30 天生存率方面没有显著差异。与 SGA 患者相比,BVM 患者的生存几率没有显著增加(OR 1.5,95%CI 0.2-9.8),环甲膜切开术患者(OR 3.9,95%CI 0.6-24.9),或 BVM 患者(OR 2.7,95%CI 0.5-13.8)在调整 GCS 的逻辑回归模型中。
本研究支持院前 BVM 通气作为环甲膜切开术的一种可能替代方法,因为两组之间的测量结果没有差异。它进一步警告不要在院前战斗环境中使用 SGA,因为与接受环甲膜切开术或 BVM 通气的患者相比,SGA 导致的发病率更高,通气、住院和 ICU 无天数更少。两组之间的 30 天生存率没有差异。