Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI.
Air Med J. 2020 Nov-Dec;39(6):444-447. doi: 10.1016/j.amj.2020.09.005. Epub 2020 Oct 6.
In caring for critically ill patients in the prehospital setting, rapid, definitive airway management is a high-risk, crucial procedure. All helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS) providers must proficiently and safely perform this procedure. Little information is available about the preference and efficacy of video laryngoscopy (VL) compared with direct laryngoscopy (DL). Additionally, there is a paucity of research investigating which method of intubation is more successful in the HEMS setting. The objective of this study was to delineate factors that contribute to provider decision regarding the method of orotracheal intubation and compare the frequency of use for each method.
An anonymous online survey was distributed to all providers in a single HEMS program. The survey results were deidentified and blinded to the researchers.
The survey was sent to 40 HEMS providers; 29 responded, and 119 total intubations were reported. Method familiarity and patient condition were the most commonly cited reasons for choosing both DL and VL for intubation. DL accounted for 15 intubation attempts, whereas 104 attempts were completed by VL.
For both laryngoscopy techniques, the top reasons cited for selecting an intubation technique were being comfortable with that technique and patient presentation. Further investigation with chart review would help confirm the reported data.
在院前环境中照顾危重症患者时,快速、明确的气道管理是一项高风险、关键的程序。所有直升机紧急医疗服务(HEMS)提供者都必须熟练、安全地执行此程序。与直接喉镜检查(DL)相比,关于视频喉镜(VL)的偏好和效果的信息很少。此外,几乎没有研究调查哪种插管方法在 HEMS 环境中更成功。本研究的目的是阐明影响提供者决定经口气管插管方法的因素,并比较每种方法的使用频率。
向一个 HEMS 项目中的所有提供者分发了匿名在线调查。调查结果被去识别并对研究人员保密。
该调查发送给了 40 名 HEMS 提供者;29 人回复,共报告了 119 次插管。选择 DL 和 VL 进行插管的最常见原因是对这两种方法的熟悉程度和患者情况。DL 进行了 15 次插管尝试,而 VL 完成了 104 次插管尝试。
对于这两种喉镜技术,选择插管技术的首要原因是对该技术的舒适度和患者表现。通过病历回顾进行进一步调查将有助于确认报告的数据。