Can't intubate, can't oxygenate? What is the preferred surgical strategy? A retrospective analysis.

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesiology intensive therapy Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5114/ait.2024.138437
Akiva Nachshon, Shimon Firman, Baruch Mark Batzofin, Bala Miklosh, Peter Vernon van Heerden
{"title":"Can't intubate, can't oxygenate? What is the preferred surgical strategy? A retrospective analysis.","authors":"Akiva Nachshon, Shimon Firman, Baruch Mark Batzofin, Bala Miklosh, Peter Vernon van Heerden","doi":"10.5114/ait.2024.138437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cricothyrotomy (CTM) is currently recommended as the preferred method due to its ease, speed, and safety in life-threatening airway emergencies where standard tracheal intubation and mask ventilation fail.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>This retrospective study analyzed 33 cases of \"can't intubate, can't oxygenate or ventilate\" (CICOV): 12 of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and 21 of CTM. The CTM group was younger (median age 44) and mainly consisted of trauma patients. The PDT group was more diverse and procedures were performed by anesthesia and critical care consultants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Initial success rates were 100% for PDT (12/12) and 86% for CTM (18/21), with one conversion from CTM to PDT. No perioperative complications occurred in the PDT group, while the CTM group experienced two cases of false tracts requiring re-do and three cases of bleeding. Immediate mortality within 24 hours was reported in 5/19 CTM patients and none in the PDT group. Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation at hospital discharge was achieved in 6/12 PDT patients and 11/21 CTM patients. Among the 21 CTM cases, all 16 survivors underwent subsequent tracheostomy. Tracheal decannulation occurred in 4/12 PDT patients and 10/21 CTM patients. Favorable immediate neurological outcomes (GCS ≥ 11T) were observed in 8/12 PDT patients and 8/21 CTM patients, while 3 PDT patients remained anesthetized until death and 7 CTM patients died within the first 72 hours without recovery attempts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In experienced hands, PDT could be a legitimate clinical option for the surgical airway in cases of CICOV. CTM may be more suitable for practitioners who encounter CICOV infrequently.</p>","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":"56 1","pages":"37-46"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11022633/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2024.138437","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Cricothyrotomy (CTM) is currently recommended as the preferred method due to its ease, speed, and safety in life-threatening airway emergencies where standard tracheal intubation and mask ventilation fail.

Material and methods: This retrospective study analyzed 33 cases of "can't intubate, can't oxygenate or ventilate" (CICOV): 12 of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) and 21 of CTM. The CTM group was younger (median age 44) and mainly consisted of trauma patients. The PDT group was more diverse and procedures were performed by anesthesia and critical care consultants.

Results: Initial success rates were 100% for PDT (12/12) and 86% for CTM (18/21), with one conversion from CTM to PDT. No perioperative complications occurred in the PDT group, while the CTM group experienced two cases of false tracts requiring re-do and three cases of bleeding. Immediate mortality within 24 hours was reported in 5/19 CTM patients and none in the PDT group. Successful liberation from mechanical ventilation at hospital discharge was achieved in 6/12 PDT patients and 11/21 CTM patients. Among the 21 CTM cases, all 16 survivors underwent subsequent tracheostomy. Tracheal decannulation occurred in 4/12 PDT patients and 10/21 CTM patients. Favorable immediate neurological outcomes (GCS ≥ 11T) were observed in 8/12 PDT patients and 8/21 CTM patients, while 3 PDT patients remained anesthetized until death and 7 CTM patients died within the first 72 hours without recovery attempts.

Conclusions: In experienced hands, PDT could be a legitimate clinical option for the surgical airway in cases of CICOV. CTM may be more suitable for practitioners who encounter CICOV infrequently.

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
无法插管,无法吸氧?首选手术策略是什么?回顾性分析。
简介:环甲膜切开术(CTM)因其简便、快速和安全,目前被推荐为在标准气管插管和面罩通气失败的危及生命的气道紧急情况下的首选方法:这项回顾性研究分析了 33 例 "无法插管、无法吸氧或通气"(CICOV)病例:其中 12 例为经皮扩张气管切开术 (PDT),21 例为 CTM。CTM 组较为年轻(中位年龄 44 岁),主要由外伤患者组成。经皮扩张气管造口术(PDT)组的患者更加多样化,手术由麻醉和重症监护顾问实施:PDT(12/12)和 CTM(18/21)的初始成功率分别为 100%和 86%,其中有一人从 CTM 转为 PDT。PDT组未出现围手术期并发症,而CTM组出现了两例需要重做的假道和三例出血。据报告,5/19 名 CTM 患者在 24 小时内立即死亡,而 PDT 组患者无一死亡。6/12 例 PDT 患者和 11/21 例 CTM 患者在出院时成功脱离了机械通气。在 21 名 CTM 病例中,所有 16 名幸存者随后都接受了气管切开术。有 4/12 例 PDT 患者和 10/21 例 CTM 患者接受了气管切开术。8/12例PDT患者和8/21例CTM患者观察到了良好的即时神经功能结果(GCS≥ 11T),而3例PDT患者一直处于麻醉状态直至死亡,7例CTM患者在未尝试恢复的情况下于72小时内死亡:结论:在经验丰富的医生手中,PDT 可以作为 CICOV 病例中手术气道的合法临床选择。CTM 可能更适合不经常遇到 CICOV 的医生。
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
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA. Can't intubate, can't oxygenate? What is the preferred surgical strategy? A retrospective analysis. Measures of preoperative anxiety: Part two. Navigating through the paradox of choice: prediction of outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Nutritional management in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective multicentre study.
×
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