Emergency front-of-neck access

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    气道管理是心脏骤停治疗的核心组成部分。如果救援人员无法使用标准的基本和先进的气道技术建立通畅的气道以提供氧合和通气,可能需要考虑紧急颈前气道接入(eFONA,例如,环甲甲状腺切开术),但这种方法的证据有限。
    本范围审查旨在确定在心脏骤停患者中使用eFONA技术的证据。
    2023年11月,我们搜索了Medline,Embase,和CochraneCentral确定成人eFONA的研究。我们纳入了随机对照试验,非随机研究,和案例系列,至少有五个案例描述了eFONA的任何使用。我们提取数据,包括学习设置,人口特征,干预特点,和结果。我们的分析集中在四个关键领域:eFONA的发病率,eFONA成功率,临床结果,和并发症。
    搜索确定了21,565篇论文,其中18,934个在去重之后仍然存在。筛选后,我们纳入了69项研究(53例报告的发病率,40报告成功率,38项报告了临床结果;36项研究报告了并发症)。我们仅确定了一项随机对照试验。在整个研究中,总共有4457次eFONA尝试,每个研究的中位数为31次尝试(四分位距16-56.5)。研究中存在明显的异质性,排除了任何数据汇集。没有仅包括心脏骤停患者的研究。
    关于eFONA的现有证据极其异构,没有专门针对其在患有心脏骤停的成年人中使用的研究。
    UNASSIGNED: Airway management is a core component of the treatment of cardiac arrest. Where a rescuer cannot establish a patent airway to provide oxygenation and ventilation using standard basic and advanced airway techniques, there may be a need to consider emergency front-of-neck airway access (eFONA, e.g., cricothyroidotomy), but there is limited evidence to inform this approach.
    UNASSIGNED: This scoping review aims to identify the evidence for the use of eFONA techniques in patients with cardiac arrest.
    UNASSIGNED: In November 2023, we searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central to identify studies on eFONA in adults. We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised studies, and case series with at least five cases that described any use of eFONA. We extracted data, including study setting, population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes. Our analysis focused on four key areas: incidence of eFONA, eFONA success rates, clinical outcomes, and complications.
    UNASSIGNED: The search identified 21,565 papers, of which 18,934 remained after de-duplication. After screening, we included 69 studies (53 reported incidence, 40 reported success rate, 38 reported clinical outcomes; 36 studies reported complications). We identified only one randomised controlled trial. Across studies, there was a total of 4,457 eFONA attempts, with a median of 31 attempts (interquartile range 16-56.5) per study. There was marked heterogeneity across studies that precluded any pooling of data. There were no studies that included only patients in cardiac arrest.
    UNASSIGNED: The available evidence for eFONA is extremely heterogeneous, with no studies specifically focusing on its use in adults with cardiac arrest.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:在环皮切开术中优先使用手术刀(SCT)或穿刺技术(PCT)仍然是一个有争议的话题。
    目的:我们进行了一项系统评价和荟萃分析,比较了穿刺环甲切开术和手术刀环甲切开术的总体成功率,首次成功率,将手术时间作为主要结局,将并发症作为次要结局.
    方法:发布的数据库,EMBASE数据库,MEDLINE,谷歌学者,和Cochrane中央控制试验登记册,从1980年到2022年10月。
    结果:共有32项研究纳入系统评价和荟萃分析。它还表明,PCT在总体成功率方面接近SCT(82.2%vs.82.6%,奇数比OR=0.91,[95CI:0.52-1.58],p=0.74)以及首次表现成功率(62.9%与65.3%,OR=0.52,[0.22-1.25],p=0.15)。就手术所需时间而言,PCT与SCT相比并不理想(干预组中PCT与SCT切口所需的平均时间高出0.34个标准差(平均差MD=17.12,[3.37-30.87],p=0.01)以及并发症(21.4%vs.15.1%,相对风险RR=1.49,[0.80-2.77],p=0.21)。
    结论:结果表明,就手术所需的时间而言,SCT优于PCT,虽然总体成功率没有差异,训练后的首次成功率,和并发症。SCT的优越性可能是更少和更可靠的程序步骤的结果。然而,证据水平较低(等级)。
    OBJECTIVE: The preferential use of a scalpel (SCT) or puncture techniques (PCT) for cricothyrotomy remains a controversial topic.
    OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing puncture cricothyrotomy with scalpel cricothyrotomy using overall success rate, first-time success rate, and time taken to perform the procedure as the primary outcome together with complications as a secondary outcome.
    METHODS: Pubmed databases, EMBASE databases, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1980 to October 2022.
    RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. It also showed that PCT was close to SCT in terms of overall success rate (82.2% vs. 82.6%, Odd Ratios OR = 0.91, [95%CI: 0.52-1.58], p = 0.74) as well as first-performance success rate (62.9% vs. 65.3%, OR = 0.52, [0.22-1.25], p = 0.15). PCT does not compare favorably with SCT in terms of required time for the procedure (the mean time required for PCT versus SCT incision in the intervention groups was 0.34 standard deviations higher (Mean Difference MD = 17.12, [3.37-30.87], p = 0.01) as well as complications (21.4% vs. 15.1%, Relative Risk RR = 1.49, [0.80-2.77], p = 0.21).
    CONCLUSIONS: The results show that SCT has an advantage over PCT in terms of time required for the procedure, while there is no difference in overall success rate, first-time success rate after training, and complications. The superiority of SCT may be the result of fewer and more reliable procedural steps. However, the level of evidence is low (GRADE).
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    活的动物模型可用于训练麻醉师进行紧急的颈前进入。在先前的湿实验室研究中报道的套管环甲状腺切开术成功与人类临床数据相矛盾。这个未来,观察性研究报告了先插管成功\“不能插管,在使用现场的高保真团队模拟过程中,无法充氧的解剖结构算法,麻醉猪42个训练有素的麻醉小组被指示跟随皇家珀斯医院不能插管,无法通过充氧算法对颈部解剖结构不明显的去饱和猪进行再充氧(平均值(标准偏差,SD)16.2(3.5)kg);平均(SD)气管内径11(1.4)mm。团队被告知,失败将促使兽医主导的安乐死。所有团队都进行了经皮套管切开术作为初始技术,具有中位数(四分位数间距,IQR(范围))开始时间为42(35-50(24-93))s。吹入气管的氧气和再充氧的首次经皮插管成功率为29%。通过反复经皮尝试(最多三次),吹入成功率得到改善。但延长的缺氧时间越来越需要安乐死(57%的吹入;重新氧合48%)。首先,第二次和第三次经皮尝试在中位数(IQR(范围))74(64-91(46-110))s,111(95-136(79-150))s和141(127-159(122-179))s,分别。18个小组的经皮插管失败,并进行了手术刀技术,主要是夹层插管(n=17),在所有情况下都实现了吹气(吹气100%;重新氧合47%)。手术刀尝试在中位数(IQR(范围))142(133-218(97-293))s开始,并在232(205-303(152-344))实现吹气。虽然经皮套管环甲切开术可以迅速重新充氧,成功率很低,团队重复尝试超过建议的60s时间范围,延迟过渡到更成功的解剖套管技术。我们建议这种“先插管”不能插管,能否充氧算法采用经皮插管的“单一尽力而为”策略,失败提示手术刀技术。
    Live animal models can be used to train anaesthetists to perform emergency front-of-neck-access. Cannula cricothyroidotomy success reported in previous wet lab studies contradicts human clinical data. This prospective, observational study reports success of a cannula-first \'can\'t intubate, can\'t oxygenate\' algorithm for impalpable anatomy during high fidelity team simulations using live, anaesthetised pigs.Forty-two trained anaesthesia teams were instructed to follow the Royal Perth Hospital can\'t intubate, can\'t oxygenate algorithm to re-oxygenate a desaturating pig with impalpable neck anatomy (mean (standard deviation, SD) 16.2 (3.5) kg); mean (SD) tracheal internal diameter 11 (1.4) mm. Teams were informed that failure would prompt veterinary-led euthanasia.All teams performed percutaneous cannula cricothyroidotomy as the initial technique, with a median (interquartile range, IQR (range)) start time of 42 (35-50 (24-93)) s. First-pass percutaneous cannula success was 29% to both insufflate tracheal oxygen and re-oxygenate. Insufflation success improved with repeated percutaneous attempts (up to three), but prolonged hypoxia time increasingly necessitated euthanasia (insufflation 57%; re-oxygenation 48%). First, second and third percutaneous attempts achieved insufflation at median (IQR (range)) 74 (64-91 (46-110)) s, 111 (95-136 (79-150)) s and 141 (127-159 (122-179)) s, respectively. Eighteen teams failed with percutaneous cannulae and performed scalpel techniques, predominantly dissection cannulation (n = 17) which achieved insufflation in all cases (insufflation 100%; re-oxygenation 47%). Scalpel attempts were started at median (IQR (range)) 142 (133-218 (97-293)) s and achieved insufflation at 232 (205-303 (152-344)) s.While percutaneous cannula cricothyroidotomy could rapidly re-oxygenate, the success rate was low and teams repeated attempts beyond the recommended 60 s time frame, delaying transition to the more successful dissection cannula technique. We recommend this \'cannula-first\' can\'t intubate, can\'t oxygenate algorithm adopts a \'single best effort\' strategy for percutaneous cannula, with failure prompting a scalpel technique.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Letter
    暂无摘要。
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:紧急前颈通道(eFONA),也叫不能插管,不能充氧(CICO)救援,是一个罕见的事件。对澳大利亚和新西兰的ED的手术或经皮气道的性能知之甚少。
    目的:描述导致eFONA,并记录在澳大利亚和新西兰急诊室航空登记处(ANZEDAR)。
    方法:对接受手术或经皮气道的ED患者进行回顾性病例系列和回顾。数据是在2010年至2015年期间从44个参与ED的60个月内收集的。
    结果:对15例成年患者进行了eFONA/CICO抢救气道:14例结膜切除术(占注册插管的0.3%)和1例气管造口术。插管的适应症是60%的创伤和40%的医学病因。插管专业是八次(53.3%)发作的急诊医学。在主要的转诊医院进行了13例(86.7%)环行甲状腺切除术和唯一的气管造口术(6.7%),并在数小时内进行了12例(80%)手术气道。在4例(26.7%)中,环甲切开术作为主要的插管方法。14次(93.3%)发作中使用了预充氧技术;4次(26.7%)呼吸暂停氧合。
    结论:大多数病例显示出与标准困难气道实践的偏差,这可能增加了手术气道表现的可能性,以及几个小时内增加的可能性。我们的发现可能为培训策略提供信息,以改善需要这种关键干预的ED患者的护理。我们建议进一步讨论紧急手术或经皮气道的拟议标准术语,促进明确的危机沟通。
    BACKGROUND: An emergency front-of-neck access (eFONA), also called can\'t intubate, can\'t oxygenate (CICO) rescue, is a rare event. Little is known about the performance of surgical or percutaneous airways in EDs across Australia and New Zealand.
    OBJECTIVE: To describe the management of cases resulting in an eFONA, and recorded in The Australian and New Zealand Emergency Department Airway Registry (ANZEDAR).
    METHODS: A retrospective case series and review of ED patients undergoing surgical or percutaneous airways. Data were collected prospectively over 60 months between 2010 and 2015 from 44 participating EDs.
    RESULTS: An eFONA/CICO rescue airway was performed on 15 adult patients: 14 cricothyroidotomies (0.3% of registry intubations) and one tracheostomy. The indication for intubation was 60% trauma and 40% medical aetiologies. The intubator specialty was emergency medicine in eight (53.3%) episodes. Thirteen (86.7%) cricothyroidotomies and the sole tracheostomy (6.7%) were performed at major referral hospitals with 12 (80%) surgical airways out of hours. In four (26.7%) cases, cricothyroidotomy was performed as the primary intubation method. Pre-oxygenation techniques were used in 14 (93.3%) episodes; apnoeic oxygenation in four (26.7%).
    CONCLUSIONS: Most cases demonstrated deviations from standard difficult airway practice, which may have increased the likelihood of performance of a surgical airway, and its increased likelihood out of hours. Our findings may inform training strategies to improve care for ED patients requiring this critical intervention. We recommend further discussion of proposed standard terminology for emergency surgical or percutaneous airways, to facilitate clear crisis communication.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

公众号