MedElevator
Войти в исследования The Journal of emergency medicine · 2014
Shifts in endotracheal tube position due to chest compressions: a simulation comparison by fixation method.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Komasawa Nobuyasu, Fujiwara Shunsuke, Miyazaki Shinichiro, Ohchi Fumihiro, Minami Toshiaki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Endotracheal tube placement during resuscitation is important for definite tracheal protection. Accidental extubation due to endotracheal tube displacement is a rare event that can result in severe complications.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated how endotracheal tube displacement is affected by tape vs. tube holder fixation using a manikin and auto-chest compression machine simulation.
METHODS: The endotracheal tube was placed in either a shallow or a deep position, with the tube cuff at the center of the glottis or 26 cm from the incisors in an advanced lifesaving simulator. Trials were performed five times in each setting with: no fixation; Durapore® tape fixation; Multipore® tape fixation; and Thomas tube holder® fixation. After 10 min of automated chest compressions, endotracheal tube shift was measured. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way repeated analysis of variance or χ(2) test, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: In the shallow setting, endotracheal tube extubation occurred in all trials with no fixation, Durapore, and Multipore. In contrast, no extubation occurred in the Tube holder trials (p < 0.05). In the deep setting, no extubation was confirmed in any trial. Relative to no fixation (0.56 ± 0.11 cm), endotracheal tube shift was significantly less in the Durapore tape, Multipore tape, and Tube holder groups (p < 0.05). Of the three fixation methods, Tube holder (0.04 ± 0.05 cm) showed significantly less shift (p < 0.05) relative to Durapore (0.28 ± 0.04 cm) and Multipore (0.32 ± 0.08 cm).
CONCLUSION: Endotracheal tube displacement occurs less with Tube holder fixation than with Durapore tape or Multipore tape during simulation of continuous chest compressions.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated how endotracheal tube displacement is affected by tape vs. tube holder fixation using a manikin and auto-chest compression machine simulation.
METHODS: The endotracheal tube was placed in either a shallow or a deep position, with the tube cuff at the center of the glottis or 26 cm from the incisors in an advanced lifesaving simulator. Trials were performed five times in each setting with: no fixation; Durapore® tape fixation; Multipore® tape fixation; and Thomas tube holder® fixation. After 10 min of automated chest compressions, endotracheal tube shift was measured. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way repeated analysis of variance or χ(2) test, with p < 0.05 considered significant.
RESULTS: In the shallow setting, endotracheal tube extubation occurred in all trials with no fixation, Durapore, and Multipore. In contrast, no extubation occurred in the Tube holder trials (p < 0.05). In the deep setting, no extubation was confirmed in any trial. Relative to no fixation (0.56 ± 0.11 cm), endotracheal tube shift was significantly less in the Durapore tape, Multipore tape, and Tube holder groups (p < 0.05). Of the three fixation methods, Tube holder (0.04 ± 0.05 cm) showed significantly less shift (p < 0.05) relative to Durapore (0.28 ± 0.04 cm) and Multipore (0.32 ± 0.08 cm).
CONCLUSION: Endotracheal tube displacement occurs less with Tube holder fixation than with Durapore tape or Multipore tape during simulation of continuous chest compressions.