From the Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.
Department of Anaesthesia, Woodlands Health, Singapore.
Anesth Analg. 2022 Aug 1;135(2):376-384. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000005969. Epub 2022 Mar 4.
Emergency front-of-neck access (FONA) is particularly challenging with impalpable neck anatomy. We compared 2 techniques that are based on a vertical midline neck incision, followed by finger dissection and then either a cannula or scalpel puncture to the cricothyroid membrane.
A manikin simulation scenario of impalpable neck anatomy and bleeding was created. Sixty-five anesthesiologists undergoing cricothyrotomy training performed scalpel-finger-cannula (SFC) and scalpel-finger-bougie (SFB) cricothyrotomy in random order. Primary outcomes were time to oxygen delivery and first-attempt success; data were analyzed using multilevel mixed-effects models.
SFC was associated with a shorter time to oxygen delivery on univariate (median time difference, -61.5 s; 95% confidence interval [CI], -84.7 to -38.3; P < .001) and multivariable (mean time difference, -62.1 s; 95% CI, -83.2 to -41.0; P < .001) analyses. Higher first-attempt success was reported with SFC than SFB (47 of 65 [72.3%] vs 18 of 65 [27.7%]). Participants also had higher odds at achieving first-attempt success with SFC than SFB (odds ratio [OR], 10.7; 95% CI, 3.3-35.0; P < .001). Successful delivery of oxygen after the "can't intubate, can't oxygenate" (CICO) declaration within 3 attempts and 180 seconds was higher (84.6% vs 63.1%) and more likely with SFC (OR, 5.59; 95% CI, 1.7-18.9; P = .006). Analyzing successful cases only, SFC achieved a shorter time to oxygen delivery (mean time difference, -24.9 s; 95% CI, -37.8 to -12.0; P < .001), but a longer time to cuffed tube insertion (mean time difference, +56.0 s; 95% CI, 39.0-73.0; P < .001). After simulation training, most participants preferred SFC in patients with impalpable neck anatomy (75.3% vs 24.6%).
In a manikin simulation of impalpable neck anatomy and bleeding, the SFC approach demonstrated superior performance in oxygen delivery and was also the preferred technique of the majority of study participants. Our study findings support the use of a cannula-based FONA technique for achieving oxygenation in a CICO situation, with the prerequisite that appropriate training and equipment are available.
在无法触及颈部解剖结构的紧急情况下进行颈部前侧入路(FONA)尤其具有挑战性。我们比较了两种基于垂直中线颈部切口的技术,然后分别采用套管或手术刀穿刺环甲膜进行指部解剖。
创建了一个无法触及颈部解剖结构和出血的模拟人模型场景。65 名接受环甲切开术培训的麻醉师以随机顺序进行了手术刀-手指-套管(SFC)和手术刀-手指-探条(SFB)环甲切开术。主要结局为供氧时间和首次尝试成功率;使用多层混合效应模型分析数据。
SFC 在单变量(中位数时间差异,-61.5 秒;95%置信区间 [CI],-84.7 至 -38.3;P<.001)和多变量(平均时间差异,-62.1 秒;95%CI,-83.2 至 -41.0;P<.001)分析中与供氧时间更短相关。与 SFB 相比,SFC 报告的首次尝试成功率更高(47/65 [72.3%] 与 18/65 [27.7%])。参与者使用 SFC 首次尝试成功的可能性也高于 SFB(优势比 [OR],10.7;95%CI,3.3-35.0;P<.001)。在 3 次尝试和 180 秒内成功进行“无法插管,无法供氧”(CICO)声明后的氧气输送成功率更高(84.6% 与 63.1%),并且 SFC 更有可能成功(OR,5.59;95%CI,1.7-18.9;P=.006)。仅分析成功案例,SFC 的供氧时间更短(平均时间差异,-24.9 秒;95%CI,-37.8 至 -12.0;P<.001),但套管插入时间更长(平均时间差异,+56.0 秒;95%CI,39.0-73.0;P<.001)。模拟培训后,大多数参与者在无法触及颈部解剖结构的患者中更喜欢 SFC(75.3% 与 24.6%)。
在无法触及颈部解剖结构和出血的模拟模型中,SFC 方法在供氧方面表现出优越的性能,也是大多数研究参与者首选的技术。我们的研究结果支持在 CICO 情况下使用基于套管的 FONA 技术实现氧合,前提是有适当的培训和设备。