Medical Faculty RWTH Aachen University, Department of Anesthesiology, University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Aachen Institute for Rescue Management & Public Safety, City of Aachen and University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
PLoS One. 2024 Sep 6;19(9):e0310146. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0310146. eCollection 2024.
Although prehospital emergency anesthesia (PHEA), with a specific focus on intubation attempts, is frequently studied in prehospital emergency care, there is a gap in the knowledge on aspects related to adherence to PHEA guidelines. This study investigates adherence to the "Guidelines for Prehospital Emergency Anesthesia in Adults" with regard to the induction of PHEA, including the decision making, rapid sequence induction, preoxygenation, standard monitoring, intubation attempts, adverse events, and administration of appropriate medications and their side effects. This retrospective study examined PHEA interventions from 01/01/2020 to 12/31/2021 in the city of Aachen, Germany. The inclusion criteria were adult patients who met the indication criteria for the PHEA. Data were obtained from emergency medical protocols. A total of 127 patients were included in this study. All the patients met the PHEA indication criteria. Despite having a valid indication, 29 patients did not receive the PHEA. 98 patients were endotracheally intubated. For these patients, monitoring had conformed to the guidelines. The medications were used according to the guidelines. A significant increase in oxygen saturation was reported after anesthesia induction (p < 0.001). The patients were successfully intubated endotracheally on the third attempt. Guideline adherence was maintained in terms of execution of PHEA, rapid sequence induction, preoxygenation, monitoring, selection, and administration of relevant medications. Emergency physicians demonstrated the capacity to effectively respond to cardiorespiratory events. Further investigations are needed on the group of patients who did not receive PHEA despite meeting the criteria. The underlying causes of decision making in these cases need to be evaluated in the future.
尽管院前急救麻醉(PHEA),尤其是针对插管尝试的麻醉,在院前急救护理中经常被研究,但在遵守 PHEA 指南方面的相关知识方面仍存在差距。本研究调查了在成人院前急救麻醉指南方面对 PHEA 的诱导,包括决策、快速序列诱导、预氧合、标准监测、插管尝试、不良事件以及适当药物的管理和它们的副作用。这项回顾性研究检查了德国亚琛市 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 12 月 31 日期间的 PHEA 干预措施。纳入标准为符合 PHEA 指征的成年患者。数据来自急救医疗方案。本研究共纳入 127 例患者。所有患者均符合 PHEA 指征。尽管有有效的指征,但仍有 29 例患者未接受 PHEA。98 例患者进行了气管插管。对于这些患者,监测符合指南。药物的使用符合指南。麻醉诱导后氧饱和度显著增加(p<0.001)。第三次尝试后,患者成功经气管内插管。在执行 PHEA、快速序列诱导、预氧合、监测、选择和管理相关药物方面,指南的遵守情况得到了保持。急诊医生表现出有效应对心肺事件的能力。需要对尽管符合标准但仍未接受 PHEA 的患者组进行进一步调查。需要在未来评估这些情况下决策的根本原因。