The Journal of emergency medicine · 2010
Difficulties with gum elastic bougie intubation in an academic emergency department.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Shah Kaushal H, Kwong Brian, Hazan Alberto, Batista Rebecca, Newman David H, Wiener Dan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The difficulties with gum elastic bougie (GEB) use in the emergency department (ED) have never been studied prospectively.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the most common difficulties associated with endotracheal intubation using a GEB in the ED.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of GEB practices in our two affiliated urban EDs with a 3-year residency training program and an annual census of 150,000 patients. Laryngoscopists performing a GEB-assisted intubation completed a structured data form after laryngoscopy, recording patient characteristics, grade of laryngeal view (using the modified Cormack-Lehane classification), reason for GEB use, and problems encountered. Data were analyzed using standard statistical methods and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: A GEB was used for 88 patients. The overall success rate was 70/88 (79.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 71.1-88.0%). The GEB failure rate of the first laryngoscopist was 25/88 (28.4%; 95% CI 21.0-40.3%), with the two most common reasons being: inability to insert the bougie past the hypopharynx in 13 (52%; 95% CI 32.4-71.6%) and inability to pass the endotracheal tube over the bougie in six (24%; 95% CI 7.3-40.7).
CONCLUSIONS: The GEB is a helpful rescue airway device, but emergency care providers should be aware that failure rates are relatively high at a teaching institution.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the most common difficulties associated with endotracheal intubation using a GEB in the ED.
METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of GEB practices in our two affiliated urban EDs with a 3-year residency training program and an annual census of 150,000 patients. Laryngoscopists performing a GEB-assisted intubation completed a structured data form after laryngoscopy, recording patient characteristics, grade of laryngeal view (using the modified Cormack-Lehane classification), reason for GEB use, and problems encountered. Data were analyzed using standard statistical methods and 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS: A GEB was used for 88 patients. The overall success rate was 70/88 (79.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 71.1-88.0%). The GEB failure rate of the first laryngoscopist was 25/88 (28.4%; 95% CI 21.0-40.3%), with the two most common reasons being: inability to insert the bougie past the hypopharynx in 13 (52%; 95% CI 32.4-71.6%) and inability to pass the endotracheal tube over the bougie in six (24%; 95% CI 7.3-40.7).
CONCLUSIONS: The GEB is a helpful rescue airway device, but emergency care providers should be aware that failure rates are relatively high at a teaching institution.