Department of Emergency Medicine, Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Department of Emergency Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota.
J Emerg Med. 2021 Mar;60(3):265-272. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2020.10.042. Epub 2020 Dec 9.
Rapid sequence intubation (RSI), defined as near-simultaneous administration of a sedative and neuromuscular blocking agent, is the most common and successful method of tracheal intubation in the emergency department. However, RSI is sometimes avoided when the physician believes there is a risk of a can't intubate/can't oxygenate scenario or critical hypoxemia because of distorted anatomy or apnea intolerance. Traditionally, topical anesthesia alone or in combination with low-dose sedation are used when physicians deem RSI too risky. Recently, a ketamine-only strategy has been suggested as an alternative approach.
We compared first attempt success and complications between ketamine-only, topical anesthesia alone or with low-dose sedation, and RSI approaches.
We analyzed registry data from the National Emergency Airway Registry, comprising emergency department intubation data from 25 centers from January 2016 to December 2018. We excluded pediatric patients (<14 years of age), those in cardiac and respiratory arrest, or those with an alternate pharmacologic approach (i.e., neuromuscular blocking agent only or nonketamine sedative alone). We analyzed first attempt intubation success and adverse events across the 3 intubation approaches. We calculated differences in outcomes between the ketamine-only and topical anesthesia groups.
During the study period, 12,511 of 19,071 intubation encounters met inclusion criteria, including 102 (0.8%) intubated with ketamine alone, 80 (0.6%) who had intubation facilitated by topical anesthesia, and 12,329 (98.5%) who underwent RSI. Unadjusted first attempt success was 61%, 85%, and 90% for the 3 groups, respectively. Hypoxemia (defined as oxygen saturation <90%) occurred in 16%, 13%, and 8% of patients during the first attempt, respectively. At least 1 adverse event occurred in 32%, 19%, and 14% of the courses of intubation for the 3 groups, respectively. In comparing the ketamine-only and topical anesthesia groups, the difference in first pass success was -24% (95% confidence interval -37% to -12%), and the difference in number of cases with ≥1 adverse event was 13% (95% confidence interval 0-25%), both favoring the topical anesthesia group.
Although sometimes advocated, the ketamine-only intubation approach is uncommon and is associated with lower success and higher complications compared with topical anesthesia and RSI approaches.
快速序贯插管(RSI)定义为镇静剂和神经肌肉阻滞剂的近乎同时给药,是急诊科气管插管最常用和最成功的方法。然而,当医生认为存在无法插管/无法给氧的情况或由于解剖结构扭曲或不耐受呼吸暂停而存在严重低氧血症的风险时,有时会避免进行 RSI。传统上,当医生认为 RSI 风险过高时,单独使用局部麻醉或联合小剂量镇静剂。最近,有人建议使用氯胺酮作为替代方法。
我们比较了氯胺酮单独使用、局部麻醉单独使用或联合小剂量镇静剂与 RSI 方法的首次尝试成功率和并发症。
我们分析了国家紧急气道登记处的登记数据,该数据包括 2016 年 1 月至 2018 年 12 月 25 个中心的急诊科插管数据。我们排除了儿科患者(<14 岁)、心脏和呼吸骤停患者或使用其他药物的患者(即仅使用神经肌肉阻滞剂或非氯胺酮镇静剂)。我们分析了 3 种插管方法的首次尝试插管成功率和不良事件。我们计算了氯胺酮组和局部麻醉组之间结果的差异。
在研究期间,19071 次插管中有 12511 次符合纳入标准,其中 102 次(0.8%)单独使用氯胺酮插管,80 次(0.6%)通过局部麻醉辅助插管,12329 次(98.5%)接受 RSI。未经调整的首次尝试成功率分别为 61%、85%和 90%。在首次尝试期间,分别有 16%、13%和 8%的患者出现低氧血症(定义为血氧饱和度<90%)。在 3 组中,分别有 32%、19%和 14%的患者至少发生 1 次不良事件。比较氯胺酮组和局部麻醉组,首次通过成功率差异为-24%(95%置信区间-37%至-12%),不良事件发生率差异为 13%(95%置信区间 0-25%),均有利于局部麻醉组。
尽管有时被提倡,但氯胺酮单独插管方法并不常见,与局部麻醉和 RSI 方法相比,其成功率较低,并发症较高。