Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias · 2017
[Efficacy and safety of endotracheal intubation performed in moving vs motionless environments].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Castejón de la Encina M ª Elena, Sanjuán Quiles Ángela, Del Moral Vicente-Mazariegos Ignacio, García Aracil Noelia, José Alcaide Lourdes, Richart Martínez Miguel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of endotracheal intubation (ETI) in a simulated clinical environment in motion vs a motionless one.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical simulation trial of ETI with 3 endotracheal tubes (Airtraq, Fast-trach, Macintosh laryngoscope) in mannequins with realistic physiological responses (MetiMan) in 2 scenarios: an environment in motion vs a motionless one. Thirty-six physicians expert in prehospital ETI participated. Outcome variables were successful intubation, effective intubation, number of attempts, maximum apnea time, and total maneuver time. The safety variables were the presence of bradycardia, tachycardia, or high or low systolic blood pressures (ie, 20% variation from baseline); hypoxemia (decrease in oxygen saturation to <90% or 10% below baseline), tube placement in the esophagus or main bronchus, and dental trauma.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between the 2 scenarios were found in the numbers of successful ETI (motionless, 71 [65.7%]; in motion, 67 [62.0%]; P=.277) or effective ETI (motionless, 104 [96.3%]; in motion, 105 [97.2%]; P=.108). Likewise, the number of attempts were similar (motionless, 91 [84.2%]; in motion, 90 [83.3%]; P=.305). Nor did we see differences in the mean (SD) maximum apnea times (motionless, 14.0 [5.6] seconds; in motion, 14.9 [8.1] seconds; P=.570) or mean total maneuver times (motionless, 236.7 [73.4] seconds; in motion, 210.3 [77.9] seconds; P=.164). The prevalences of bradycardia, tachycardia, high or low systolic blood pressure, hypoxemia, placements in the esophagus or bronchus, and dental trauma also did not differ significantly between the 2 scenarios.
CONCLUSION: Neither efficacy nor safety variables differed significantly when ETI was performed in mannequins in a motionless environment vs one simulating ambulances in motion.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Clinical simulation trial of ETI with 3 endotracheal tubes (Airtraq, Fast-trach, Macintosh laryngoscope) in mannequins with realistic physiological responses (MetiMan) in 2 scenarios: an environment in motion vs a motionless one. Thirty-six physicians expert in prehospital ETI participated. Outcome variables were successful intubation, effective intubation, number of attempts, maximum apnea time, and total maneuver time. The safety variables were the presence of bradycardia, tachycardia, or high or low systolic blood pressures (ie, 20% variation from baseline); hypoxemia (decrease in oxygen saturation to <90% or 10% below baseline), tube placement in the esophagus or main bronchus, and dental trauma.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences between the 2 scenarios were found in the numbers of successful ETI (motionless, 71 [65.7%]; in motion, 67 [62.0%]; P=.277) or effective ETI (motionless, 104 [96.3%]; in motion, 105 [97.2%]; P=.108). Likewise, the number of attempts were similar (motionless, 91 [84.2%]; in motion, 90 [83.3%]; P=.305). Nor did we see differences in the mean (SD) maximum apnea times (motionless, 14.0 [5.6] seconds; in motion, 14.9 [8.1] seconds; P=.570) or mean total maneuver times (motionless, 236.7 [73.4] seconds; in motion, 210.3 [77.9] seconds; P=.164). The prevalences of bradycardia, tachycardia, high or low systolic blood pressure, hypoxemia, placements in the esophagus or bronchus, and dental trauma also did not differ significantly between the 2 scenarios.
CONCLUSION: Neither efficacy nor safety variables differed significantly when ETI was performed in mannequins in a motionless environment vs one simulating ambulances in motion.