目的探讨急诊抢救室床旁加强可视喉镜培训在困难气道插管教学中的作用。方法将84名急诊抢救室轮转医师随机分为模拟培训组和床旁加强培训组,每组42人。培训前后完成调查问卷,独立完成模拟可视喉镜气管插管和患者可视喉镜气管插管,收集...目的探讨急诊抢救室床旁加强可视喉镜培训在困难气道插管教学中的作用。方法将84名急诊抢救室轮转医师随机分为模拟培训组和床旁加强培训组,每组42人。培训前后完成调查问卷,独立完成模拟可视喉镜气管插管和患者可视喉镜气管插管,收集培训满意度、插管意愿、插管成功率预期、插管尝试次数、插管成功率、插管总时间、困难气道评价、插管后评价(导管位置合格率、气囊压力合格率、不良反应发生率等)数据。结果模拟培训组与床旁加强培训组学员年龄、学历差异无统计学意义。床旁加强培训的学员培训满意度为(98.0±1.1)分,优于模拟培训组的(94.7±2.7)分(P<0.01);床旁加强组培训后尝试困难插管意愿为(8.6±0.7)分,高于模拟培训组(6.6±1.3)分(P<0.01);床旁加强培训组预期插管成功率82.0%±5.6%,高于模拟培训组60.3%±11.3%(P<0.01)。在插管过程评价方面,床旁加强培训组与模拟培训组比较,插管尝试次数更少[1.0±0.4 vs 2.0±0.7]、插管成功率更高[39(92.9)vs 28(66.7)]、插管总时间更短[38.8±3.3 vs 50.5±5.6](均P<0.01)。在插管后评价方面,床旁加强培训组与模拟培训组比较,气囊压力合格率更高[41(97.6%)vs 35(83.3%)]、导管位置合格率更高[41(97.6%)vs 35(83.3%)]、插管不良反应:呛咳[1(2.4%)vs 8(19.1%)]、咽喉损伤[0(0.0%)vs 6(14.3%)]更少(均P<0.05)。结论床旁加强可视化气管插管培训可提高急诊医师困难气道的处理信心和能力。展开更多
BACKGROUND: Airway management in intensive care unit(ICU) patients is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of successful first-pass intubation in the ICU by using the direct laryngoscopy(DL) and ...BACKGROUND: Airway management in intensive care unit(ICU) patients is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of successful first-pass intubation in the ICU by using the direct laryngoscopy(DL) and that by using the video laryngoscopy(VL).METHODS: A randomized, non-blinded trial comparing first-pass success rate of intubation between VL and DL was performed. Patients were recruited in the period from August 2014 to August 2016. All physicians working at ICU received hands-on training in the use of the video and direct laryngoscope. The primary outcome measure was the first-pass intubation success. RESULTS: A total of 163 ICU patients underwent intubation during the study period(81 patients in VL group and 82 in DL group). The rate of successful first-pass intubation was not significantly different between the VL and the DL group(67.9% vs. 69.5%, P=0.824). Moreover, the overall intubation success and total number of attempts to achieve intubation success did not differ between the two groups. In patients with successful first-pass intubation, the median duration of the intubation procedure did not differ between the two groups. The Cormack-Lehane grades and the percentage of glottic opening score were similar, and no significant differences were found between the two groups. There were no statistical differences between the VL and the DL group in intubation complications(all P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Among ICU patients requiring intubation, there was no significant difference in the rate of successful first-pass intubation between VL and DL.展开更多
Background: The critically ill or injured patient undergoing military medical evacuation may require emergent intubation. Intubation may be life-saving, but it carries risks.The novice or infrequent laryngoscopist has...Background: The critically ill or injured patient undergoing military medical evacuation may require emergent intubation. Intubation may be life-saving, but it carries risks.The novice or infrequent laryngoscopist has a distinct disadvantage because experience is critical for the rapid and safe establishment of a secured airway. This challenge is compounded by the austere environment of the back of an aircraft under blackout conditions. This study determined which of five different video-assisted intubation devices(VAIDs) was best suited for in-flight use by U.S. Air Force Critical Care Air Transport Teams by comparing time to successful intubation between novice and expert laryngoscopists under three conditions, Normal Airway Lights on(NAL), Difficult Airway Lights on(DAL) and Difficult Airway Blackout(DAB), using manikins on a standard military transport stanchion and the floor with a minimal amount of setup time and extraneous light emission.Methods: A convenience sample size of 40 participants(24 novices and 16 experts) attempted intubation with each of the 5 different video laryngoscopic devices on high-fidelity airway manikins. Time to tracheal intubation and number of optimization maneuvers used were recorded. Kruskal-Wallis testing determined significant differences between the VAIDs in time to intubation for each particular scenario. Devices with significant differences underwent pair-wise comparison testing using rank-sum analysis to further clarify the difference. Device assembly times, startup times and the amount of light emitted were recorded. Perceived ease of use was surveyed. Results: Novices were fastest with the Pentax AWS in all difficult airway scenarios. Experts recorded the shortest median times consistently using 3 of the 5 devices. The AWS was superior overall in 4 of the 6 scenarios tested. Experts and novices subjectively judged the Glide Scope Ranger as easiest to use. The light emitted by all the devices was less than the USAF-issued headlamp.Conclusion: Novices intubated fastest with展开更多
文摘目的探讨急诊抢救室床旁加强可视喉镜培训在困难气道插管教学中的作用。方法将84名急诊抢救室轮转医师随机分为模拟培训组和床旁加强培训组,每组42人。培训前后完成调查问卷,独立完成模拟可视喉镜气管插管和患者可视喉镜气管插管,收集培训满意度、插管意愿、插管成功率预期、插管尝试次数、插管成功率、插管总时间、困难气道评价、插管后评价(导管位置合格率、气囊压力合格率、不良反应发生率等)数据。结果模拟培训组与床旁加强培训组学员年龄、学历差异无统计学意义。床旁加强培训的学员培训满意度为(98.0±1.1)分,优于模拟培训组的(94.7±2.7)分(P<0.01);床旁加强组培训后尝试困难插管意愿为(8.6±0.7)分,高于模拟培训组(6.6±1.3)分(P<0.01);床旁加强培训组预期插管成功率82.0%±5.6%,高于模拟培训组60.3%±11.3%(P<0.01)。在插管过程评价方面,床旁加强培训组与模拟培训组比较,插管尝试次数更少[1.0±0.4 vs 2.0±0.7]、插管成功率更高[39(92.9)vs 28(66.7)]、插管总时间更短[38.8±3.3 vs 50.5±5.6](均P<0.01)。在插管后评价方面,床旁加强培训组与模拟培训组比较,气囊压力合格率更高[41(97.6%)vs 35(83.3%)]、导管位置合格率更高[41(97.6%)vs 35(83.3%)]、插管不良反应:呛咳[1(2.4%)vs 8(19.1%)]、咽喉损伤[0(0.0%)vs 6(14.3%)]更少(均P<0.05)。结论床旁加强可视化气管插管培训可提高急诊医师困难气道的处理信心和能力。
文摘BACKGROUND: Airway management in intensive care unit(ICU) patients is challenging. The aim of this study was to compare the rate of successful first-pass intubation in the ICU by using the direct laryngoscopy(DL) and that by using the video laryngoscopy(VL).METHODS: A randomized, non-blinded trial comparing first-pass success rate of intubation between VL and DL was performed. Patients were recruited in the period from August 2014 to August 2016. All physicians working at ICU received hands-on training in the use of the video and direct laryngoscope. The primary outcome measure was the first-pass intubation success. RESULTS: A total of 163 ICU patients underwent intubation during the study period(81 patients in VL group and 82 in DL group). The rate of successful first-pass intubation was not significantly different between the VL and the DL group(67.9% vs. 69.5%, P=0.824). Moreover, the overall intubation success and total number of attempts to achieve intubation success did not differ between the two groups. In patients with successful first-pass intubation, the median duration of the intubation procedure did not differ between the two groups. The Cormack-Lehane grades and the percentage of glottic opening score were similar, and no significant differences were found between the two groups. There were no statistical differences between the VL and the DL group in intubation complications(all P>0.05). CONCLUSION: Among ICU patients requiring intubation, there was no significant difference in the rate of successful first-pass intubation between VL and DL.
基金Award number FA8650-11-2-6B03 was issued on October 27,2010 by the United States Air Force's Air Force Materiel Command at USAF/AFMC,Det 1 AF Research Laboratory,2310 Eight St.,Building 167,Wright-Patterson AFB,OH,USA for the allocated sum of $124,000.00 with an award amount of $132,373.00 by Grant Officer Timothy Hannah.The Principal Investigator on the award was Dr.Todd E.Carter
文摘Background: The critically ill or injured patient undergoing military medical evacuation may require emergent intubation. Intubation may be life-saving, but it carries risks.The novice or infrequent laryngoscopist has a distinct disadvantage because experience is critical for the rapid and safe establishment of a secured airway. This challenge is compounded by the austere environment of the back of an aircraft under blackout conditions. This study determined which of five different video-assisted intubation devices(VAIDs) was best suited for in-flight use by U.S. Air Force Critical Care Air Transport Teams by comparing time to successful intubation between novice and expert laryngoscopists under three conditions, Normal Airway Lights on(NAL), Difficult Airway Lights on(DAL) and Difficult Airway Blackout(DAB), using manikins on a standard military transport stanchion and the floor with a minimal amount of setup time and extraneous light emission.Methods: A convenience sample size of 40 participants(24 novices and 16 experts) attempted intubation with each of the 5 different video laryngoscopic devices on high-fidelity airway manikins. Time to tracheal intubation and number of optimization maneuvers used were recorded. Kruskal-Wallis testing determined significant differences between the VAIDs in time to intubation for each particular scenario. Devices with significant differences underwent pair-wise comparison testing using rank-sum analysis to further clarify the difference. Device assembly times, startup times and the amount of light emitted were recorded. Perceived ease of use was surveyed. Results: Novices were fastest with the Pentax AWS in all difficult airway scenarios. Experts recorded the shortest median times consistently using 3 of the 5 devices. The AWS was superior overall in 4 of the 6 scenarios tested. Experts and novices subjectively judged the Glide Scope Ranger as easiest to use. The light emitted by all the devices was less than the USAF-issued headlamp.Conclusion: Novices intubated fastest with
