创伤患者院前气管插管与其他气道管理方法的院内死亡率对比。来自创伤登记 DGU® 的一项队列研究。

IF 1.9 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Moritz Weigeldt, Stefan Schulz-Drost, Dirk Stengel, Rolf Lefering, Sascha Treskatsch, Christian Berger
{"title":"创伤患者院前气管插管与其他气道管理方法的院内死亡率对比。来自创伤登记 DGU® 的一项队列研究。","authors":"Moritz Weigeldt, Stefan Schulz-Drost, Dirk Stengel, Rolf Lefering, Sascha Treskatsch, Christian Berger","doi":"10.1007/s00068-024-02498-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prehospital airway management in trauma is a key component of care and is associated with particular risks. Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is the gold standard, while extraglottic airway devices (EGAs) are recommended alternatives. There is limited evidence comparing their effectiveness. In this retrospective analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU®, we compared ETI with EGA in prehospital airway management regarding in-hospital mortality in patients with trauma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included cases only from German hospitals with a minimum Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥ 2 and age ≥ 16 years. All patients without prehospital airway protection were excluded. We performed a multivariate logistic regression to adjust with the outcome measure of hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included n = 10,408 cases of whom 92.5% received ETI and 7.5% EGA. The mean injury severity score was higher in the ETI group (28.8 ± 14.2) than in the EGA group (26.3 ± 14.2), and in-hospital mortality was comparable: ETI 33.0%; EGA 30.7% (27.5 to 33.9). After conducting logistic regression, the odds ratio for mortality in the ETI group was 1.091 (0.87 to 1.37). The standardized mortality ratio was 1.04 (1.01 to 1.07) in the ETI group and 1.1 (1.02 to 1.26) in the EGA group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference in mortality rates between the use of ETI or EGA, or the ratio of expected versus observed mortality when using ETI.</p>","PeriodicalId":12064,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","volume":" ","pages":"1637-1647"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11458629/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"In-hospital mortality after prehospital endotracheal intubation versus alternative methods of airway management in trauma patients. A cohort study from the TraumaRegister DGU®.\",\"authors\":\"Moritz Weigeldt, Stefan Schulz-Drost, Dirk Stengel, Rolf Lefering, Sascha Treskatsch, Christian Berger\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00068-024-02498-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Prehospital airway management in trauma is a key component of care and is associated with particular risks. Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is the gold standard, while extraglottic airway devices (EGAs) are recommended alternatives. There is limited evidence comparing their effectiveness. In this retrospective analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU®, we compared ETI with EGA in prehospital airway management regarding in-hospital mortality in patients with trauma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included cases only from German hospitals with a minimum Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥ 2 and age ≥ 16 years. All patients without prehospital airway protection were excluded. We performed a multivariate logistic regression to adjust with the outcome measure of hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included n = 10,408 cases of whom 92.5% received ETI and 7.5% EGA. The mean injury severity score was higher in the ETI group (28.8 ± 14.2) than in the EGA group (26.3 ± 14.2), and in-hospital mortality was comparable: ETI 33.0%; EGA 30.7% (27.5 to 33.9). After conducting logistic regression, the odds ratio for mortality in the ETI group was 1.091 (0.87 to 1.37). The standardized mortality ratio was 1.04 (1.01 to 1.07) in the ETI group and 1.1 (1.02 to 1.26) in the EGA group.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was no significant difference in mortality rates between the use of ETI or EGA, or the ratio of expected versus observed mortality when using ETI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12064,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1637-1647\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11458629/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02498-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-024-02498-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:创伤患者的院前气道管理是护理工作的关键组成部分,同时也存在特殊风险。气管内插管 (ETI) 是黄金标准,而声门外气道装置 (EGA) 则是推荐的替代方法。目前比较其有效性的证据有限。在这项来自 TraumaRegister DGU® 的回顾性分析中,我们比较了 ETI 和 EGA 在创伤患者院内死亡率方面的院前气道管理效果:我们仅纳入了来自德国医院的病例,这些病例的最低简略损伤量表评分≥ 2 分,年龄≥ 16 岁。所有未进行院前气道保护的患者均被排除在外。我们进行了多变量逻辑回归,以调整住院死亡率这一结果指标:我们纳入了 n = 10,408 例患者,其中 92.5% 接受了 ETI,7.5% 接受了 EGA。ETI 组的平均损伤严重程度评分(28.8 ± 14.2)高于 EGA 组(26.3 ± 14.2),住院死亡率相当:ETI 33.0%; EGA 30.7% (27.5 to 33.9)。进行逻辑回归后,ETI 组死亡率的几率比为 1.091(0.87 至 1.37)。ETI组的标准化死亡率为1.04(1.01至1.07),EGA组为1.1(1.02至1.26):结论:使用 ETI 或 EGA 的死亡率没有明显差异,使用 ETI 时的预期死亡率与观察死亡率之比也没有明显差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

In-hospital mortality after prehospital endotracheal intubation versus alternative methods of airway management in trauma patients. A cohort study from the TraumaRegister DGU®.

In-hospital mortality after prehospital endotracheal intubation versus alternative methods of airway management in trauma patients. A cohort study from the TraumaRegister DGU®.

Purpose: Prehospital airway management in trauma is a key component of care and is associated with particular risks. Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is the gold standard, while extraglottic airway devices (EGAs) are recommended alternatives. There is limited evidence comparing their effectiveness. In this retrospective analysis from the TraumaRegister DGU®, we compared ETI with EGA in prehospital airway management regarding in-hospital mortality in patients with trauma.

Methods: We included cases only from German hospitals with a minimum Abbreviated Injury Scale score ≥ 2 and age ≥ 16 years. All patients without prehospital airway protection were excluded. We performed a multivariate logistic regression to adjust with the outcome measure of hospital mortality.

Results: We included n = 10,408 cases of whom 92.5% received ETI and 7.5% EGA. The mean injury severity score was higher in the ETI group (28.8 ± 14.2) than in the EGA group (26.3 ± 14.2), and in-hospital mortality was comparable: ETI 33.0%; EGA 30.7% (27.5 to 33.9). After conducting logistic regression, the odds ratio for mortality in the ETI group was 1.091 (0.87 to 1.37). The standardized mortality ratio was 1.04 (1.01 to 1.07) in the ETI group and 1.1 (1.02 to 1.26) in the EGA group.

Conclusions: There was no significant difference in mortality rates between the use of ETI or EGA, or the ratio of expected versus observed mortality when using ETI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
311
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery aims to open an interdisciplinary forum that allows for the scientific exchange between basic and clinical science related to pathophysiology, diagnostics and treatment of traumatized patients. The journal covers all aspects of clinical management, operative treatment and related research of traumatic injuries. Clinical and experimental papers on issues relevant for the improvement of trauma care are published. Reviews, original articles, short communications and letters allow the appropriate presentation of major and minor topics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信