Complicaciones y grado de dificultad de la intubación orotraqueal en la unidad de cuidados intensivos pre-post instauración de un protocolo de intubación para el paciente crítico. Estudio prospectivo y observacional

M. Taboada , X. Almeida , A. Cariñena , J. Costa , J. Carmona-Monge , A. Agilda , L. Barreiro , J. Castillo , K. Williams , J. Segurola , J. Álvarez , T. Seoane-Pillado
{"title":"Complicaciones y grado de dificultad de la intubación orotraqueal en la unidad de cuidados intensivos pre-post instauración de un protocolo de intubación para el paciente crítico. Estudio prospectivo y observacional","authors":"M. Taboada ,&nbsp;X. Almeida ,&nbsp;A. Cariñena ,&nbsp;J. Costa ,&nbsp;J. Carmona-Monge ,&nbsp;A. Agilda ,&nbsp;L. Barreiro ,&nbsp;J. Castillo ,&nbsp;K. Williams ,&nbsp;J. Segurola ,&nbsp;J. Álvarez ,&nbsp;T. Seoane-Pillado","doi":"10.1016/j.redar.2023.07.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The objective of our study was to compare the degree of difficulty and complications related to tracheal intubation in an intensive care unit (ICU) before and after the introduction of an intubation protocol based on the Difficult Airway Society guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults, published in 2018.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Prospective, observational study comparing all intubations performed in our ICU over two periods: pre-protocol (January 2015-January 2019) and post-protocol (February 2019-July 2022). The material used for intubation, the degree of difficulty, and intubation-related complications were recorded.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>During the study period, 661 patients were intubated —437 in the pre-protocol period (96% by direct laryngoscopy) and 224 in the post-protocol period (53% with direct laryngoscopy, 46% with video laryngoscopy). We observed an improvement in laryngeal view in the post-protocol period compared to the pre-protocol period (Cormack-Lehane ≥<!--> <!-->2b in 7.6% vs 29.8%, <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.001), and a decrease in the number of moderate-to-severely difficult intubations (6.7% vs 17.4%, <em>P</em> <!-->&lt;<!--> <!-->.001). The first-pass success rate was 92.8% in the post-protocol period compared to 90.2% pre-protocol (<em>P</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->.508). We did not find significant differences in complications between the periods studied.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Intubations performed in the post-protocol period were associated with improved laryngeal view and fewer cases of difficult intubation compared with the pre-protocol period.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46479,"journal":{"name":"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Espanola de Anestesiologia y Reanimacion","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0034935623002542","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The objective of our study was to compare the degree of difficulty and complications related to tracheal intubation in an intensive care unit (ICU) before and after the introduction of an intubation protocol based on the Difficult Airway Society guidelines for the management of tracheal intubation in critically ill adults, published in 2018.

Methods

Prospective, observational study comparing all intubations performed in our ICU over two periods: pre-protocol (January 2015-January 2019) and post-protocol (February 2019-July 2022). The material used for intubation, the degree of difficulty, and intubation-related complications were recorded.

Results

During the study period, 661 patients were intubated —437 in the pre-protocol period (96% by direct laryngoscopy) and 224 in the post-protocol period (53% with direct laryngoscopy, 46% with video laryngoscopy). We observed an improvement in laryngeal view in the post-protocol period compared to the pre-protocol period (Cormack-Lehane ≥ 2b in 7.6% vs 29.8%, P < .001), and a decrease in the number of moderate-to-severely difficult intubations (6.7% vs 17.4%, P < .001). The first-pass success rate was 92.8% in the post-protocol period compared to 90.2% pre-protocol (P = .508). We did not find significant differences in complications between the periods studied.

Conclusions

Intubations performed in the post-protocol period were associated with improved laryngeal view and fewer cases of difficult intubation compared with the pre-protocol period.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重症监护室中气管插管的并发症和困难程度:重症患者插管方案实施前和实施后。前瞻性观察研究
目的 我们的研究旨在比较重症监护病房(ICU)在引入基于 2018 年发布的困难气道协会成人重症患者气管插管管理指南的插管方案前后的困难程度和气管插管相关并发症。方法 前瞻性观察研究比较了我们 ICU 在两个时期内进行的所有插管:方案前(2015 年 1 月至 2019 年 1 月)和方案后(2019 年 2 月至 2022 年 7 月)。结果在研究期间,共为 661 名患者进行了插管,其中协议前为 437 人(96% 采用直接喉镜),协议后为 224 人(53% 采用直接喉镜,46% 采用视频喉镜)。我们观察到,与方案实施前相比,方案实施后的喉部视野有所改善(7.6% 的 Cormack-Lehane ≥ 2b vs 29.8%,P < .001),中度至重度困难插管的数量有所减少(6.7% vs 17.4%,P < .001)。方案实施后的首次插管成功率为 92.8%,而方案实施前为 90.2%(P = .508)。结论与协议签订前相比,协议签订后进行的插管与喉部视野的改善和困难插管病例的减少有关。
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 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
15.40%
发文量
113
审稿时长
82 days
期刊最新文献
Sepsis debida a absceso hepático diagnosticada mediante ultrasonidos en la UCI ¿Por qué mi máquina de anestesia detecta halotano tras la administración de broncodilatadores? Un dato curioso Perforación traqueal tardía tras tiroidectomía total Monitorización del índice biespectral para sedación en colonoscopias electivas de pacientes adultos: ensayo controlado aleatorizado Manejo anestésico de banding de la arteria pulmonar en un paciente adulto con ventrículo único y transposición de grandes arterias no corregida
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1