用于疑似新冠肺炎患者插管的气雾盒:模拟研究

Q3 Medicine
Saúl Álvarez Robles, Claudia Consuelo Torres Contreras, Raquel Rivera Carvajal, Víctor Manuel Lucigniani Ariza, Sonia Margarita Vivas García
{"title":"用于疑似新冠肺炎患者插管的气雾盒:模拟研究","authors":"Saúl Álvarez Robles, Claudia Consuelo Torres Contreras, Raquel Rivera Carvajal, Víctor Manuel Lucigniani Ariza, Sonia Margarita Vivas García","doi":"10.5554/22562087.e1006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Endotracheal intubation is a procedure associated with a high level of exposure to the COVID-19 virus. This has led to the search of alternatives to reduce the risk of contamination, including the so-called aerosol box. \nObjective: To compare time and difficulty of orotracheal intubation when using the aerosol box in a simulated setting. \nMethodology: Observational study conducted with the participation of 33 anesthetist physicians and anesthesia residents; groups were compared in terms of time and intubation difficulty using a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope and the McGRATH™ MAC (Medtronic) videolaryngoscope with or without aerosol box. In order to determine performance with the intubation maneuver, crude hazard ratios were estimated, and a Cox multivariate regression model was built, adjusted by anesthetist years of experience and difficulties during the procedure. \nResults: On average, the aerosol box increased intubation time by 7.57 seconds (SD 8.33) when the videolaryngoscope was used, and by 6.62 (SD 5.74) with the Macintosh. Overall, 132 intubations were performed, with 121 successful and 6 failed first-time attempts (4 with the use of the aerosol box); 16 participants (48.48%) reported difficulty handling the box. With the use of the Macintosh, intubation was found to be faster than with the videolaryngoscope (cHR: 1.36 [95% CI 0.64-2.88]; adjusted HR: 2.20 [95% CI 0.73-6.62]). \nConclusions: The use of the aerosol box and personal protective equipment in a simulation setting hinders the intubation maneuver and may result in protracted execution time.","PeriodicalId":36529,"journal":{"name":"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aerosol box for intubation of patients with suspected COVID-19: simulation study\",\"authors\":\"Saúl Álvarez Robles, Claudia Consuelo Torres Contreras, Raquel Rivera Carvajal, Víctor Manuel Lucigniani Ariza, Sonia Margarita Vivas García\",\"doi\":\"10.5554/22562087.e1006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. Endotracheal intubation is a procedure associated with a high level of exposure to the COVID-19 virus. This has led to the search of alternatives to reduce the risk of contamination, including the so-called aerosol box. \\nObjective: To compare time and difficulty of orotracheal intubation when using the aerosol box in a simulated setting. \\nMethodology: Observational study conducted with the participation of 33 anesthetist physicians and anesthesia residents; groups were compared in terms of time and intubation difficulty using a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope and the McGRATH™ MAC (Medtronic) videolaryngoscope with or without aerosol box. In order to determine performance with the intubation maneuver, crude hazard ratios were estimated, and a Cox multivariate regression model was built, adjusted by anesthetist years of experience and difficulties during the procedure. \\nResults: On average, the aerosol box increased intubation time by 7.57 seconds (SD 8.33) when the videolaryngoscope was used, and by 6.62 (SD 5.74) with the Macintosh. Overall, 132 intubations were performed, with 121 successful and 6 failed first-time attempts (4 with the use of the aerosol box); 16 participants (48.48%) reported difficulty handling the box. With the use of the Macintosh, intubation was found to be faster than with the videolaryngoscope (cHR: 1.36 [95% CI 0.64-2.88]; adjusted HR: 2.20 [95% CI 0.73-6.62]). \\nConclusions: The use of the aerosol box and personal protective equipment in a simulation setting hinders the intubation maneuver and may result in protracted execution time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e1006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5554/22562087.e1006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

介绍气管插管是一种与高水平接触新冠肺炎病毒相关的程序。这导致了寻找降低污染风险的替代品,包括所谓的气溶胶盒。目的:比较在模拟环境中使用气雾盒进行经口气管插管的时间和难度。方法:由33名麻醉师、医生和麻醉住院医师参与的观察性研究;使用传统的Macintosh喉镜和McGRATH在时间和插管困难方面对各组进行了比较™ 带或不带气雾盒的MAC(美敦力)视频喉镜。为了确定插管操作的性能,估计了粗略的危险比,并建立了Cox多元回归模型,根据麻醉师多年的经验和手术过程中的困难进行了调整。结果:使用视频喉镜时,气雾盒平均增加插管时间7.57秒(SD 8.33),使用Macintosh时增加插管时间6.62秒(SD 5.74)。总共进行了132次插管,其中121次成功,6次失败(4次使用气雾盒);16名参与者(48.48%)表示难以处理箱子。使用Macintosh,插管比使用视频喉镜更快(cHR:1.36[95%CI 0.64-2.88];调整后HR:2.20[95%CI 0.73-6.62])。结论:在模拟环境中使用气雾盒和个人防护设备会阻碍插管操作,并可能导致执行时间延长。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aerosol box for intubation of patients with suspected COVID-19: simulation study
Introduction. Endotracheal intubation is a procedure associated with a high level of exposure to the COVID-19 virus. This has led to the search of alternatives to reduce the risk of contamination, including the so-called aerosol box. Objective: To compare time and difficulty of orotracheal intubation when using the aerosol box in a simulated setting. Methodology: Observational study conducted with the participation of 33 anesthetist physicians and anesthesia residents; groups were compared in terms of time and intubation difficulty using a conventional Macintosh laryngoscope and the McGRATH™ MAC (Medtronic) videolaryngoscope with or without aerosol box. In order to determine performance with the intubation maneuver, crude hazard ratios were estimated, and a Cox multivariate regression model was built, adjusted by anesthetist years of experience and difficulties during the procedure. Results: On average, the aerosol box increased intubation time by 7.57 seconds (SD 8.33) when the videolaryngoscope was used, and by 6.62 (SD 5.74) with the Macintosh. Overall, 132 intubations were performed, with 121 successful and 6 failed first-time attempts (4 with the use of the aerosol box); 16 participants (48.48%) reported difficulty handling the box. With the use of the Macintosh, intubation was found to be faster than with the videolaryngoscope (cHR: 1.36 [95% CI 0.64-2.88]; adjusted HR: 2.20 [95% CI 0.73-6.62]). Conclusions: The use of the aerosol box and personal protective equipment in a simulation setting hinders the intubation maneuver and may result in protracted execution time.
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
Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology
Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology Medicine-Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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