Comparison Between Real-Time Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Tracheostomy and Surgical Tracheostomy in Critically Ill Patients.

IF 1.8 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE

Critical Care Research and Practice Pub Date : 2022-09-25 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2022/1388225

Hyun Tag Kang, Shin Young Kim, Min Ki Lee, Seung Won Lee, Aerin Baek, Ki Nam Park

{"title":"Comparison Between Real-Time Ultrasound-Guided Percutaneous Tracheostomy and Surgical Tracheostomy in Critically Ill Patients.","authors":"Hyun Tag Kang, Shin Young Kim, Min Ki Lee, Seung Won Lee, Aerin Baek, Ki Nam Park","doi":"10.1155/2022/1388225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (US-PDT) has been adapted for use in intensive care units (ICU). US-PDT is comparable to bronchoscopy-assisted tracheostomy. However, compared to surgical tracheostomy (ST), its safety and effectiveness have not been well studied.Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of US-PDT compared to ST.Materials and methods: A total of 90 patients who underwent US-PDT (n = 36) or ST (n = 54) between July 2019 and September 2020 were enrolled. US-PDT was performed in the ICU without a surgical assistant or bronchoscope. Data were collected retrospectively and analyzed regarding clinical characteristics, procedure times and details, complications, and mortality rate.Results: The success rate of US-PDT was 97.4% and the procedure time was shorter than ST (5.2 ± 3.1 vs. 10.5 ± 5.0 min). There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics and procedure details. There was no procedure-related mortality in either of the groups.Conclusions: US-PDT is time-efficient and as safe as ST. Based on our results, US-PDT may be considered a potential alternative to ST in high-risk patients and in those who cannot be transported.","PeriodicalId":46583,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Research and Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9527437/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1388225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Ultrasound-guided percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (US-PDT) has been adapted for use in intensive care units (ICU). US-PDT is comparable to bronchoscopy-assisted tracheostomy. However, compared to surgical tracheostomy (ST), its safety and effectiveness have not been well studied.

Objectives: To determine the efficacy and safety of US-PDT compared to ST.

Materials and methods: A total of 90 patients who underwent US-PDT (n = 36) or ST (n = 54) between July 2019 and September 2020 were enrolled. US-PDT was performed in the ICU without a surgical assistant or bronchoscope. Data were collected retrospectively and analyzed regarding clinical characteristics, procedure times and details, complications, and mortality rate.

Results: The success rate of US-PDT was 97.4% and the procedure time was shorter than ST (5.2 ± 3.1 vs. 10.5 ± 5.0 min). There were no significant differences in clinical characteristics and procedure details. There was no procedure-related mortality in either of the groups.

Conclusions: US-PDT is time-efficient and as safe as ST. Based on our results, US-PDT may be considered a potential alternative to ST in high-risk patients and in those who cannot be transported.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

实时超声引导下经皮气管切开术与外科气管切开术在危重病人中的比较。

背景:超声引导下经皮扩张性气管切开术(US-PDT)已被应用于重症监护病房(ICU)。US-PDT与支气管镜辅助气管切开术相当。然而，与外科气管切开术(ST)相比，其安全性和有效性尚未得到很好的研究。目的:确定US-PDT与ST相比的有效性和安全性。材料和方法:在2019年7月至2020年9月期间，共有90名接受US-PDT (n = 36)或ST (n = 54)的患者入组。US-PDT在ICU进行，没有外科助理或支气管镜。回顾性收集资料并分析临床特征、手术时间和细节、并发症和死亡率。结果:US-PDT的成功率为97.4%，手术时间短于ST(5.2±3.1 vs 10.5±5.0 min)。两组在临床特征和手术细节上无显著差异。两组均无手术相关死亡率。结论:US-PDT与ST一样具有时效性和安全性，根据我们的研究结果，US-PDT可能被认为是高风险患者和无法运输的患者的ST的潜在替代方案。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Critical Care Research and Practice CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-

CiteScore

3.60

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

14 weeks