■经鼻气管插管(TI)在儿科重症监护病房(PICU)中占所有TI的一小部分。鼻TI的风险和益处没有得到很好的量化。因此,关于这种做法的安全性和描述性数据是必要的。
我们在2013年至2020年前瞻性收集的质量改进数据库(国家儿童紧急航线登记处:NEAR4KIDS)中评估了TI航线与安全结果之间的关联。主要结局为重度去饱和(SpO2比基线>20%)和/或严重不良TI相关事件(TIAEs),使用NEAR4KIDS定义。为了平衡病人,提供者,和实践协变量,我们利用倾向评分(PS)匹配来比较鼻部与鼻部的结果。口服TI。
■总共22,741次[鼻部870(3.8%),从60个PICU中报告了口服21,871(96.2%)]。婴儿在鼻TI中的比例高于口服TI(75.9%,vs46.2%),以及患有心脏病的儿童(46.9%vs.14.4%),两者p<0.001。严重的去饱和或严重的TIAE发生在23.7%的鼻腔和22.5%的口服TI中(未调整的p=0.408)。使用PS匹配,严重去饱和和/或严重不良TIAEs的患病率为鼻vs.口服TI的19.8%(绝对差3.8%,95%置信区间(CI):-0.07,7.7%),p=0.055。首次尝试成功率为鼻TI的72.1%,口服TI的69.2%,p=0.072。使用PS匹配,两组的成功率没有差异(鼻部72.2%vs.口服71.5%,p=0.759)。
■在这项大型国际前瞻性队列研究中,严重的围插管并发症的风险并没有显著升高.鼻TI在PICU的少数TI中使用,病人有很大的差异,提供者,与口服TI相比,实践。可能需要进行前瞻性多中心试验以解决潜在的选择偏差并确认鼻TI的安全性。
UNASSIGNED: Nasal tracheal intubation (TI) represents a minority of all TI in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The risks and benefits of nasal TI are not well quantified. As such, safety and descriptive data regarding this practice are warranted.
UNASSIGNED: We evaluated the association between TI route and safety outcomes in a prospectively collected quality improvement database (National Emergency Airway Registry for Children: NEAR4KIDS) from 2013 to 2020. The primary outcome was severe desaturation (SpO2 > 20% from baseline) and/or severe adverse TI-associated events (TIAEs), using NEAR4KIDS definitions. To balance patient, provider, and practice covariates, we utilized propensity score (PS) matching to compare the outcomes of nasal vs. oral TI.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 22,741 TIs [nasal 870 (3.8%), oral 21,871 (96.2%)] were reported from 60 PICUs. Infants were represented in higher proportion in the nasal TI than the oral TI (75.9%, vs 46.2%), as well as children with cardiac conditions (46.9% vs. 14.4%), both p < 0.001. Severe desaturation or severe TIAE occurred in 23.7% of nasal and 22.5% of oral TI (non-adjusted p = 0.408). With PS matching, the prevalence of severe desaturation and or severe adverse TIAEs was 23.6% of nasal vs. 19.8% of oral TI (absolute difference 3.8%, 95% confidence interval (CI): - 0.07, 7.7%), p = 0.055. First attempt success rate was 72.1% of nasal TI versus 69.2% of oral TI, p = 0.072. With PS matching, the success rate was not different between two groups (nasal 72.2% vs. oral 71.5%, p = 0.759).
UNASSIGNED: In this large international prospective cohort study, the risk of severe peri-intubation complications was not significantly higher. Nasal TI is used in a minority of TI in PICUs, with substantial differences in patient, provider, and practice compared to oral TI.A prospective multicenter trial may be warranted to address the potential selection bias and to confirm the safety of nasal TI.