AmbulanceZorg Rotterdam-Rijnmond, P.O. Box 4, 2990 AA, Barendrecht, The Netherlands.
Trauma Research Unit Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2020 Oct;46(5):1039-1045. doi: 10.1007/s00068-020-01326-z. Epub 2020 Feb 19.
The aim of this study was to compare the rate of first attempt success of endotracheal intubation performed by ambulance nurses in patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3 using video laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy.
A prospective cohort study was conducted in a single, independent ambulance service. Twenty of a total of 65 nurse-staffed ambulances were equipped with a video laryngoscope; a classic direct laryngoscope (Macintosh) was available on all 65 ambulances. The primary outcome was first attempt success of the intubation. Secondary outcomes were overall success, time needed for intubation, adverse events, technical or environmental issues encountered, and return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Ambulance nurses were asked if the intubation device had affected the outcome of the intubation.
The first attempt success rate in the video laryngoscopy group [53 of 93 attempts (57%)] did not differ from that in the direct laryngoscopy group [61 of 126 (48%); p = 0.221]. However, the second attempt success rate was higher in the video laryngoscopy group [77/93 (83%) versus 80/126 (63%), p = 0.002]. The median time needed for the intubation (53 versus 56 s) was similar in both groups. Ambulance nurses more often expected a positive effect when performing endotracheal intubation with a video laryngoscope (n = 72, 81%) compared with a direct laryngoscope (n = 49, 52%; p < 0.001).
Although no significant effect on the first attempt success was found, video laryngoscopy did increase the overall success rate. Ambulance nurses had a more positive valuation of the video laryngoscope with respect to success chances.
本研究旨在比较格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)为 3 分的患者使用视频喉镜与直接喉镜行气管插管时首次尝试成功率。
这是一项在一家独立的单一救护服务机构中进行的前瞻性队列研究。20 辆配备视频喉镜的总共 65 辆护士配备的救护车上;所有 65 辆救护车均配备经典的直接喉镜(Macintosh)。主要结局是插管的首次尝试成功率。次要结局是总体成功率、插管所需时间、不良事件、遇到的技术或环境问题以及自主循环恢复(ROSC)。询问救护车护士插管设备是否影响了插管的结果。
视频喉镜组首次尝试成功率[93 次尝试中的 53 次(57%)]与直接喉镜组[126 次尝试中的 61 次(48%);p=0.221]无差异。然而,视频喉镜组的第二次尝试成功率更高[77/93(83%)比 80/126(63%),p=0.002]。两组插管所需的中位数时间相似[53 秒比 56 秒]。与直接喉镜相比,救护车护士在使用视频喉镜行气管插管时更常期望产生积极效果(n=72,81%),而直接喉镜时为 49 例(52%;p<0.001)。
虽然首次尝试成功率无显著影响,但视频喉镜确实提高了总体成功率。救护车护士对视频喉镜的成功率有更积极的评价。