Harrison T, Thomas S H, Wedel S K
Boston MedFlight, MA 02210-1995, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 1997 Oct;15(6):558-61. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(97)90156-x.
This study's goal was to analyze aeromedical emergency medical services (EMS) endotracheal intubation (ETI) success rates for in-flight intubations, and to retrospectively compare in-flight ETI success rates with those achieved in hospital and trauma scene settings. Patients undergoing flight crew ETI during a 3-year study period were reviewed, and flight team-performed intubations were classified as in-flight, hospital (at referring hospital), or ground (at trauma scene). Flight crews attempted ETI in 302 patients, with success in 291 patients (96.4%). ETI success rates for in-flight, hospital, and ground groups were 94.2%, 96.8%, and 98.3%, respectively (P = .22). There were no differences among the groups in proportions of pediatric patients (P = .55) or multiple intubation attempts (P = .83). Use of paralytic agents was more frequent in ground and in-flight groups as compared with hospital group patients (P = .03). We conclude that with the aircraft and aeromedical crew studied, ETI was as likely to be successful in-flight as in other settings.
本研究的目的是分析空中医疗急救服务(EMS)中飞行中气管插管(ETI)的成功率,并回顾性比较飞行中ETI成功率与在医院和创伤现场环境中所取得的成功率。对在3年研究期间接受飞行机组人员进行ETI的患者进行了回顾,飞行团队实施的插管被分类为飞行中、医院(在转诊医院)或地面(在创伤现场)。飞行机组人员对302例患者尝试进行ETI,其中291例成功(96.4%)。飞行中、医院和地面组的ETI成功率分别为94.2%、96.8%和98.3%(P = 0.22)。各组之间儿科患者比例(P = 0.55)或多次插管尝试比例(P = 0.83)无差异。与医院组患者相比,地面组和飞行中组使用麻痹剂更为频繁(P = 0.03)。我们得出结论,在所研究的飞机和空中医疗机组条件下,飞行中ETI成功的可能性与在其他环境中一样。