Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2019
Percutaneous vs surgical emergency cricothyroidotomy: An experimental randomized crossover study on an animal-larynx model.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Andresen Åke Erling L, Kramer-Johansen Jo, Kristiansen Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Airway management is a paramount clinical skill for the anaesthesiologist. The Emergency Cricothyroidotomy (EC) constitutes the final step in difficult airway algorithms securing a patent airway via a front-of-neck access. The main distinction among available techniques is whether the procedure is surgical and scalpel-based or percutaneous and needle-based.
METHODS: In an experimental randomized crossover trial, using an animal larynx model, we compared two EC techniques; the Rapid Four Step Technique and the Melker Emergency Cricothyrotomy Kit®. We assessed time expenditure and success rates among 20 anaesthesiologists and related this to previous training, seniority and clinical experience with EC.
RESULTS: All participants achieved successful airway access with both methods. Average time to successful airway access for scalpel-based EC was 54 (±31) seconds and for percutaneous EC 89 (±38) seconds, with 35 (95% CI: 14-57) seconds time difference, P = .003. Doctors with recent (<12 months) EC training performed better compared to the non-training group (37 vs 61 seconds, P = .03 for scalpel-based EC, and 65 vs 99 seconds, P = .02 for percutaneous EC). We found no differences according to clinical seniority or previous real-life EC experience.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that anaesthesiologists achieved successful airway access on an animal experimental model with both EC methods within a reasonable time frame, but the scalpel-based EC is performed more promptly. Recent EC training affected the time expenditure positively, while seniority and clinical EC experience did not. EC procedures should be regularly trained for.
METHODS: In an experimental randomized crossover trial, using an animal larynx model, we compared two EC techniques; the Rapid Four Step Technique and the Melker Emergency Cricothyrotomy Kit®. We assessed time expenditure and success rates among 20 anaesthesiologists and related this to previous training, seniority and clinical experience with EC.
RESULTS: All participants achieved successful airway access with both methods. Average time to successful airway access for scalpel-based EC was 54 (±31) seconds and for percutaneous EC 89 (±38) seconds, with 35 (95% CI: 14-57) seconds time difference, P = .003. Doctors with recent (<12 months) EC training performed better compared to the non-training group (37 vs 61 seconds, P = .03 for scalpel-based EC, and 65 vs 99 seconds, P = .02 for percutaneous EC). We found no differences according to clinical seniority or previous real-life EC experience.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated that anaesthesiologists achieved successful airway access on an animal experimental model with both EC methods within a reasonable time frame, but the scalpel-based EC is performed more promptly. Recent EC training affected the time expenditure positively, while seniority and clinical EC experience did not. EC procedures should be regularly trained for.