Suppr超能文献

比较两种经鼻气管插管技术在危重症成年患者中的应用:ExtubAR 随机临床试验

Comparison of Two Extubation Techniques in Critically Ill Adult Subjects: The ExtubAR Randomized Clinical Trial.

机构信息

Universidad Nacional de la Matanza, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Hospital Donación Francisco Santojanni, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Universidad Nacional de la Matanza, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Hospital Donación Francisco Santojanni, Buenos Aires, Argentina and Sanatorio Anchorena San Martín, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

出版信息

Respir Care. 2022 Jan;67(1):76-86. doi: 10.4187/respcare.09276. Epub 2021 Nov 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Two orotracheal extubation techniques are described in the literature: the traditional technique and the positive-pressure technique. Although prior studies reported better clinical outcomes with the positive-pressure extubation technique, its superiority has not been extensively studied yet. This study was to determine whether the positive-pressure orotracheal extubation technique, compared with the traditional orotracheal extubation technique, reduces the incidence of major postextubation complications (up to 60 min) in critically ill adult subjects.

METHODS

This was a multi-center randomized clinical trial. Subjects age > 18 y, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation through an endotracheal tube, who met the orotracheal extubation criteria were included and randomized to traditional extubation group (removing the endotracheal tube by applying continuous endotracheal suctioning during the entire procedure) or positive-pressure group (application of pressure support mode at 15/10 cm HO during cuff deflation and extubation). The primary measure was postextubation major complications, defined as the clinical evidence of at least one of the following: desaturation, upper-airway obstruction, or vomiting.

RESULTS

A total of 725 subjects was randomly assigned to the traditional extubation group ( = 358) and positive-pressure group ( = 367). Seventeen subjects were eliminated and not included in the per-protocol analysis. Of 708 subjects, 185 (26.1%) developed at least one major complication. The incidence was 27.8% (96/345) in the traditional group compared with 24.5% (89/363) in the positive-pressure group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the 2 groups (absolute risk 3% [95 CI -3 to 10]; relative risk, 0.88 [95 CI 0.69-1.13], = .32).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the trend toward the positive-pressure group, no statistically significant differences were observed. Our findings agree with the literature in that positive-pressure extubation is a safe procedure; therefore, both techniques may be used during extubation in critically ill adult patients.

摘要

背景

文献中描述了两种经口气管插管拔管技术:传统技术和正压技术。尽管先前的研究报告称,正压拔管技术的临床结果更好,但它的优势尚未得到广泛研究。本研究旨在确定与传统经口气管插管拔管技术相比,正压经口气管插管拔管技术是否会降低危重症成年患者拔管后 60 分钟内主要并发症的发生率。

方法

这是一项多中心随机临床试验。纳入符合经口气管插管拔管标准、需要通过气管内插管进行有创机械通气的年龄>18 岁的成年患者,并将其随机分为传统拔管组(在整个过程中持续进行气管内吸引以去除气管内插管)或正压组(在放气和拔管时应用压力支持模式,压力为 15/10 cmH₂O)。主要测量指标是拔管后主要并发症,定义为以下至少一种临床表现:低氧血症、上呼吸道阻塞或呕吐。

结果

共有 725 例患者被随机分配至传统拔管组(n=358)和正压拔管组(n=367)。17 例患者被排除,未纳入意向治疗分析。在 708 例患者中,185 例(26.1%)发生至少一种主要并发症。传统组的发生率为 27.8%(96/345),正压组为 24.5%(89/363)。两组之间无统计学差异(绝对风险差异 3%[95%CI-3 至 10];相对风险,0.88[95%CI0.69-1.13],P=0.32)。

结论

尽管正压组有倾向,但未观察到统计学差异。我们的研究结果与文献一致,即正压拔管是一种安全的操作;因此,在危重症成年患者的拔管过程中,可以使用这两种技术。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验