急诊科外快速顺序插管使用不足:急诊医生的见解——一项初步、回顾性观察研究。

IF 1.9 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sung-Yeol Park, Sung-Bin Chon
{"title":"急诊科外快速顺序插管使用不足:急诊医生的见解——一项初步、回顾性观察研究。","authors":"Sung-Yeol Park, Sung-Bin Chon","doi":"10.15441/ceem.24.227","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) involves the administration of induction agents and neuromuscular blockers before endotracheal intubation (ETI). However, RSI seems to be underutilized outside emergency departments (ED). We compared RSI adoption rates and ETI outcomes outside and within EDs and investigated whether RSI adoption affected ETI outcomes outside EDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included adults who underwent emergency ETI outside the operating room at a university hospital between March 2022 and February 2023. The exclusion criteria included CPR, intentional RSI avoidance, and tube exchange via the introducer. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate. Secondary outcomes included multiple (≥3) attempts, prolonged (>5 min) ETI, and complications. The association between RSI adoption and outcomes outside the ED was assessed using multivariable logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 490 ETI cases were included: 290 males, 68.3±14.7 y. Cases outside ED (n=286) received less RSI than cases at ED (n=204): 12.6% vs. 86.8%, <i>p</i><0.001. They showed less first-attempt success (62.2% vs. 88.2%) and more multiple attempts (11.5% vs. 2.0%), total time of ETI (8.4±8.3 vs. 2.5±2.5 min, <i>p</i><0.001), and complications (32.2% vs. 19.6%, <i><i>p</i></i>=0.003). However, multivariable logistic regression revealed no significant association between RSI adoption and outcomes outside the ED: odds ratio 1.74 [95% CI: 0.783-3.84], 0.167 [0.022-1.30], 1.04 [0.405-2.69]), and 1.50 [0.664-3.40]), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Outside the ED, RSI adoption was lower and ETI outcomes were poorer than those within the ED. However, no association was found between RSI adoption and ETI outcomes outside the ED.</p>","PeriodicalId":10325,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Underuse of Rapid Sequence Intubation Outside the Emergency Department: Insights from Emergency Physicians‒a Preliminary, Retrospective Observational Study.\",\"authors\":\"Sung-Yeol Park, Sung-Bin Chon\",\"doi\":\"10.15441/ceem.24.227\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) involves the administration of induction agents and neuromuscular blockers before endotracheal intubation (ETI). However, RSI seems to be underutilized outside emergency departments (ED). We compared RSI adoption rates and ETI outcomes outside and within EDs and investigated whether RSI adoption affected ETI outcomes outside EDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective study included adults who underwent emergency ETI outside the operating room at a university hospital between March 2022 and February 2023. The exclusion criteria included CPR, intentional RSI avoidance, and tube exchange via the introducer. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate. Secondary outcomes included multiple (≥3) attempts, prolonged (>5 min) ETI, and complications. The association between RSI adoption and outcomes outside the ED was assessed using multivariable logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 490 ETI cases were included: 290 males, 68.3±14.7 y. Cases outside ED (n=286) received less RSI than cases at ED (n=204): 12.6% vs. 86.8%, <i>p</i><0.001. They showed less first-attempt success (62.2% vs. 88.2%) and more multiple attempts (11.5% vs. 2.0%), total time of ETI (8.4±8.3 vs. 2.5±2.5 min, <i>p</i><0.001), and complications (32.2% vs. 19.6%, <i><i>p</i></i>=0.003). However, multivariable logistic regression revealed no significant association between RSI adoption and outcomes outside the ED: odds ratio 1.74 [95% CI: 0.783-3.84], 0.167 [0.022-1.30], 1.04 [0.405-2.69]), and 1.50 [0.664-3.40]), respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Outside the ED, RSI adoption was lower and ETI outcomes were poorer than those within the ED. However, no association was found between RSI adoption and ETI outcomes outside the ED.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.24.227\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EMERGENCY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15441/ceem.24.227","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:快速顺序插管(RSI)涉及气管插管(ETI)前给药诱导剂和神经肌肉阻滞剂。然而,在急诊科(ED)之外,RSI似乎没有得到充分利用。我们比较了RSI采用率和急诊室内外的ETI结果,并调查了RSI采用率是否影响急诊室外的ETI结果。方法:这项回顾性研究纳入了2022年3月至2023年2月期间在一所大学医院手术室外接受急诊ETI的成年人。排除标准包括心肺复苏术、故意避免RSI和通过介绍器换管。主要结果是第一次通过的成功率。次要结局包括多次(≥3次)尝试、延长(bbb5分钟)ETI和并发症。使用多变量逻辑回归评估RSI采用与ED外结果之间的关系。结果:共纳入ETI 490例:男性290例(68.3±14.7岁),非ED组(286例)RSI发生率低于ED组(204例):12.6% vs. 86.8% (ppp=0.003)。然而,多变量logistic回归显示,采用RSI与ED以外的结果之间没有显著关联:比值比分别为1.74 [95% CI: 0.783-3.84]、0.167[0.022-1.30]、1.04[0.405-2.69]和1.50[0.664-3.40])。结论:在ED之外,RSI采用率较低,ETI结果较差。然而,在ED之外,RSI采用率与ETI结果之间没有关联。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Underuse of Rapid Sequence Intubation Outside the Emergency Department: Insights from Emergency Physicians‒a Preliminary, Retrospective Observational Study.

Objective: Rapid sequence intubation (RSI) involves the administration of induction agents and neuromuscular blockers before endotracheal intubation (ETI). However, RSI seems to be underutilized outside emergency departments (ED). We compared RSI adoption rates and ETI outcomes outside and within EDs and investigated whether RSI adoption affected ETI outcomes outside EDs.

Methods: This retrospective study included adults who underwent emergency ETI outside the operating room at a university hospital between March 2022 and February 2023. The exclusion criteria included CPR, intentional RSI avoidance, and tube exchange via the introducer. The primary outcome was the first-pass success rate. Secondary outcomes included multiple (≥3) attempts, prolonged (>5 min) ETI, and complications. The association between RSI adoption and outcomes outside the ED was assessed using multivariable logistic regression.

Results: A total of 490 ETI cases were included: 290 males, 68.3±14.7 y. Cases outside ED (n=286) received less RSI than cases at ED (n=204): 12.6% vs. 86.8%, p<0.001. They showed less first-attempt success (62.2% vs. 88.2%) and more multiple attempts (11.5% vs. 2.0%), total time of ETI (8.4±8.3 vs. 2.5±2.5 min, p<0.001), and complications (32.2% vs. 19.6%, p=0.003). However, multivariable logistic regression revealed no significant association between RSI adoption and outcomes outside the ED: odds ratio 1.74 [95% CI: 0.783-3.84], 0.167 [0.022-1.30], 1.04 [0.405-2.69]), and 1.50 [0.664-3.40]), respectively.

Conclusion: Outside the ED, RSI adoption was lower and ETI outcomes were poorer than those within the ED. However, no association was found between RSI adoption and ETI outcomes outside the ED.

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
2.80
自引率
10.50%
发文量
59
×
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