Lindekaer A L, Jacobsen J, Andersen G, Laub M, Jensen P F
Department of Anaesthesiology, Herlev Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Denmark.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997 Nov;41(10):1280-4. doi: 10.1111/j.1399-6576.1997.tb04645.x.
To evaluate treatment of ventricular fibrillation (VF) occurring during anaesthesia and the use of a full-scale simulator, 80 anaesthetists in teams of two were attending a training session in the simulator Sophus.
The sessions were recorded on videotape and reviewed with the anaesthetists afterwards. Time of treatment and the sequence were registered.
Onset time for VF was the starting point. Most of the subjects changed respiratory settings. Four teams did not change inspiratory oxygen and 17 teams did not turn off the vaporiser. Cardiac compression was initiated by all teams. DC-defibrillation was not used by two teams, with 38 of 40 teams defibrillating once, 37 twice and 29 teams three times. Adrenaline was administered by 30 of 40 teams.
There was very little consistency among the teams regarding treatment for VF according to accepted algorithms. An anaesthesia simulator could be a tool for training and it is a safe way of demonstrating for the anaesthetist that certain treatment algorithms and behaviour during critical incidents are the most effective.
为评估麻醉期间发生心室颤动(VF)的治疗情况以及全尺寸模拟器的使用,80名麻醉师两人一组参加了在Sophus模拟器上的培训课程。
培训课程录像,并在之后与麻醉师一起回顾。记录治疗时间和顺序。
以VF发作时间为起点。大多数受试者改变了呼吸设置。四个团队未改变吸入氧气,17个团队未关闭蒸发器。所有团队均开始进行心脏按压。两个团队未使用直流电除颤,40个团队中有38个团队除颤一次,37个团队除颤两次,29个团队除颤三次。40个团队中有30个团队使用了肾上腺素。
根据公认的算法,各团队在VF治疗方面的一致性很差。麻醉模拟器可以作为一种培训工具,并且是向麻醉师证明某些治疗算法和危急事件中的行为是最有效的安全方式。