{"title":"支气管镜引导插管高仿真模拟器培训的最佳持续时间:非劣效性随机试验。","authors":"Luyang Jiang, Qingmei Yang, Qingyue Li, Bailin Jiang, Ciren Laba, Yi Feng","doi":"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The optimal simulator training duration for flexible optical bronchoscopic (FOB) intubation is unknown. This study aimed to determine whether a learning curve-based training modality was noninferior to a fixed training time modality in terms of clinical FOB intubation time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority study was conducted from May to August 2022. Anesthesiology residents or interns were enrolled. Eligible participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive new learning curve-based simulator training (individualized training time based on performance, group New) or reference fixed training time simulator training (1 hour, group Reference). The primary outcome was the time to complete FOB intubation in patients, which was defined as the time from the introduction of the FOB into the mouth until the first capnography visualization. The margin for detecting clinical significance was defined as 10 seconds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 participants were included in the analysis (16 in each group). All trainees successfully intubated the patients. The mean intubation time (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 81.9 (65.7-98.1) seconds in group New and 97.0 (77.4-116.6) seconds in group Reference. The upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the mean difference of clinical intubation time between groups was 9.3 seconds. Noninferiority was claimed. The mean duration of the training in group New was 28.4 (95% CI, 23.5-33.4) minutes. The total number of training procedures on simulators in group New was significantly less than that in group Reference ( P < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical FOB intubation time in group New was noninferior to that in group Reference.</p>","PeriodicalId":49517,"journal":{"name":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","volume":" ","pages":"294-301"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446536/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Optimal Duration of High-Fidelity Simulator Training for Bronchoscope-Guided Intubation: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Luyang Jiang, Qingmei Yang, Qingyue Li, Bailin Jiang, Ciren Laba, Yi Feng\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SIH.0000000000000739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The optimal simulator training duration for flexible optical bronchoscopic (FOB) intubation is unknown. This study aimed to determine whether a learning curve-based training modality was noninferior to a fixed training time modality in terms of clinical FOB intubation time.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority study was conducted from May to August 2022. Anesthesiology residents or interns were enrolled. Eligible participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive new learning curve-based simulator training (individualized training time based on performance, group New) or reference fixed training time simulator training (1 hour, group Reference). The primary outcome was the time to complete FOB intubation in patients, which was defined as the time from the introduction of the FOB into the mouth until the first capnography visualization. The margin for detecting clinical significance was defined as 10 seconds.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 32 participants were included in the analysis (16 in each group). All trainees successfully intubated the patients. The mean intubation time (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 81.9 (65.7-98.1) seconds in group New and 97.0 (77.4-116.6) seconds in group Reference. The upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the mean difference of clinical intubation time between groups was 9.3 seconds. Noninferiority was claimed. The mean duration of the training in group New was 28.4 (95% CI, 23.5-33.4) minutes. The total number of training procedures on simulators in group New was significantly less than that in group Reference ( P < 0.01).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The clinical FOB intubation time in group New was noninferior to that in group Reference.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49517,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"294-301\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11446536/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000739\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Simulation in Healthcare-Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0000000000000739","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Optimal Duration of High-Fidelity Simulator Training for Bronchoscope-Guided Intubation: A Noninferiority Randomized Trial.
Introduction: The optimal simulator training duration for flexible optical bronchoscopic (FOB) intubation is unknown. This study aimed to determine whether a learning curve-based training modality was noninferior to a fixed training time modality in terms of clinical FOB intubation time.
Methods: This multicenter, randomized, noninferiority study was conducted from May to August 2022. Anesthesiology residents or interns were enrolled. Eligible participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive new learning curve-based simulator training (individualized training time based on performance, group New) or reference fixed training time simulator training (1 hour, group Reference). The primary outcome was the time to complete FOB intubation in patients, which was defined as the time from the introduction of the FOB into the mouth until the first capnography visualization. The margin for detecting clinical significance was defined as 10 seconds.
Results: A total of 32 participants were included in the analysis (16 in each group). All trainees successfully intubated the patients. The mean intubation time (95% confidence interval [CI]) was 81.9 (65.7-98.1) seconds in group New and 97.0 (77.4-116.6) seconds in group Reference. The upper bound of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the mean difference of clinical intubation time between groups was 9.3 seconds. Noninferiority was claimed. The mean duration of the training in group New was 28.4 (95% CI, 23.5-33.4) minutes. The total number of training procedures on simulators in group New was significantly less than that in group Reference ( P < 0.01).
Conclusions: The clinical FOB intubation time in group New was noninferior to that in group Reference.
期刊介绍:
Simulation in Healthcare: The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare is a multidisciplinary publication encompassing all areas of applications and research in healthcare simulation technology. The journal is relevant to a broad range of clinical and biomedical specialties, and publishes original basic, clinical, and translational research on these topics and more: Safety and quality-oriented training programs; Development of educational and competency assessment standards; Reports of experience in the use of simulation technology; Virtual reality; Epidemiologic modeling; Molecular, pharmacologic, and disease modeling.