比较罗库洛宁和琥珀酰胆碱对急诊科首次尝试插管成功率的影响

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1155/2024/5581626
Helen Y. Wang, Kaitlin E. Crowley, Lena K. Tran, Calvin A. Brown, Kaylee Marino
{"title":"比较罗库洛宁和琥珀酰胆碱对急诊科首次尝试插管成功率的影响","authors":"Helen Y. Wang,&nbsp;Kaitlin E. Crowley,&nbsp;Lena K. Tran,&nbsp;Calvin A. Brown,&nbsp;Kaylee Marino","doi":"10.1155/2024/5581626","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n <p><i>Background</i>. Succinylcholine and rocuronium are the predominant neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) used for rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the emergency department (ED). Prior studies have found reduced first-attempt intubation success (FAIS) with rocuronium compared to succinylcholine. Recent large registry data have shown no difference in intubating conditions or FAIS. <i>Objectives</i>. The objective of this study was to compare FAIS rates for rocuronium and succinylcholine when used for RSI in a high-acuity academic ED. <i>Methods</i>. This was a single-center retrospective study. Patients were included if they received either succinylcholine or rocuronium for RSI in the ED from January 2016 to August 2020. The primary endpoint was FAIS. Subgroup analyses were performed evaluating the impact of weight-based dosing on FAIS for each agent, and multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of baseline characteristics on the primary outcome. <i>Results</i>. There were 448 patients who received rocuronium and 183 patients who received succinylcholine. No difference was observed in unadjusted FAIS between patients receiving rocuronium (median weight-based dose: 1.22 mg/kg) or succinylcholine (median weight-based dose: 1.43 mg/kg) (361 (80.6%) vs. 150 (82.0%), <i>p</i> = 0.69). There were no differences in FAIS between the weight-based dose categories for rocuronium and for succinylcholine. <i>Conclusions</i>. These findings were consistent with those from recent studies indicating no difference in FAIS between rocuronium and succinylcholine, although the median dose of rocuronium used in this study was higher than traditionally recommended. Larger prospective studies are warranted to further evaluate the effect of weight-based paralytic dosing on FAIS.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15381,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/5581626","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Rocuronium and Succinylcholine for First-Attempt Intubation Success in the Emergency Department\",\"authors\":\"Helen Y. Wang,&nbsp;Kaitlin E. Crowley,&nbsp;Lena K. Tran,&nbsp;Calvin A. Brown,&nbsp;Kaylee Marino\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2024/5581626\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n <p><i>Background</i>. Succinylcholine and rocuronium are the predominant neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) used for rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the emergency department (ED). Prior studies have found reduced first-attempt intubation success (FAIS) with rocuronium compared to succinylcholine. Recent large registry data have shown no difference in intubating conditions or FAIS. <i>Objectives</i>. The objective of this study was to compare FAIS rates for rocuronium and succinylcholine when used for RSI in a high-acuity academic ED. <i>Methods</i>. This was a single-center retrospective study. Patients were included if they received either succinylcholine or rocuronium for RSI in the ED from January 2016 to August 2020. The primary endpoint was FAIS. Subgroup analyses were performed evaluating the impact of weight-based dosing on FAIS for each agent, and multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of baseline characteristics on the primary outcome. <i>Results</i>. There were 448 patients who received rocuronium and 183 patients who received succinylcholine. No difference was observed in unadjusted FAIS between patients receiving rocuronium (median weight-based dose: 1.22 mg/kg) or succinylcholine (median weight-based dose: 1.43 mg/kg) (361 (80.6%) vs. 150 (82.0%), <i>p</i> = 0.69). There were no differences in FAIS between the weight-based dose categories for rocuronium and for succinylcholine. <i>Conclusions</i>. These findings were consistent with those from recent studies indicating no difference in FAIS between rocuronium and succinylcholine, although the median dose of rocuronium used in this study was higher than traditionally recommended. Larger prospective studies are warranted to further evaluate the effect of weight-based paralytic dosing on FAIS.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15381,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1155/2024/5581626\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/5581626\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2024/5581626","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景。琥珀胆碱和罗库溴铵是急诊科(ED)用于快速顺序插管(RSI)的主要神经肌肉阻断剂(NMBA)。之前的研究发现,与琥珀胆碱相比,使用罗库溴铵会降低首次尝试插管的成功率(FAIS)。最近的大型登记数据显示,插管条件或 FAIS 没有差异。研究目的本研究旨在比较罗库溴铵和琥珀胆碱在高危急值学术急诊室用于 RSI 时的 FAIS 率。方法。这是一项单中心回顾性研究。从 2016 年 1 月到 2020 年 8 月,在急诊室接受琥珀胆碱或罗库溴铵治疗 RSI 的患者均被纳入研究范围。主要终点为 FAIS。研究人员进行了分组分析,评估基于体重的剂量对每种药物 FAIS 的影响,并进行了多变量分析,评估基线特征对主要结果的影响。结果共有 448 名患者接受了罗库溴铵治疗,183 名患者接受了琥珀胆碱治疗。接受罗库溴铵(基于体重的中位剂量:1.22 毫克/千克)或琥珀胆碱(基于体重的中位剂量:1.43 毫克/千克)治疗的患者在未经调整的 FAIS 方面无差异(361 例(80.6%)对 150 例(82.0%),P = 0.69)。罗库溴铵和琥珀胆碱在基于体重的剂量类别之间的 FAIS 没有差异。结论。尽管本研究中使用的罗库溴铵中位剂量高于传统推荐剂量,但这些结果与近期研究结果一致,表明罗库溴铵和琥珀胆碱的 FAIS 没有差异。有必要进行更大规模的前瞻性研究,以进一步评估基于体重的麻痹剂量对 FAIS 的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Comparison of Rocuronium and Succinylcholine for First-Attempt Intubation Success in the Emergency Department

Background. Succinylcholine and rocuronium are the predominant neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) used for rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in the emergency department (ED). Prior studies have found reduced first-attempt intubation success (FAIS) with rocuronium compared to succinylcholine. Recent large registry data have shown no difference in intubating conditions or FAIS. Objectives. The objective of this study was to compare FAIS rates for rocuronium and succinylcholine when used for RSI in a high-acuity academic ED. Methods. This was a single-center retrospective study. Patients were included if they received either succinylcholine or rocuronium for RSI in the ED from January 2016 to August 2020. The primary endpoint was FAIS. Subgroup analyses were performed evaluating the impact of weight-based dosing on FAIS for each agent, and multivariate analysis was conducted to evaluate the impact of baseline characteristics on the primary outcome. Results. There were 448 patients who received rocuronium and 183 patients who received succinylcholine. No difference was observed in unadjusted FAIS between patients receiving rocuronium (median weight-based dose: 1.22 mg/kg) or succinylcholine (median weight-based dose: 1.43 mg/kg) (361 (80.6%) vs. 150 (82.0%), p = 0.69). There were no differences in FAIS between the weight-based dose categories for rocuronium and for succinylcholine. Conclusions. These findings were consistent with those from recent studies indicating no difference in FAIS between rocuronium and succinylcholine, although the median dose of rocuronium used in this study was higher than traditionally recommended. Larger prospective studies are warranted to further evaluate the effect of weight-based paralytic dosing on FAIS.

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
4.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
226
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics provides a forum for clinicians, pharmacists and pharmacologists to explore and report on issues of common interest. Reports and commentaries on current issues in medical and pharmaceutical practice are encouraged. Papers on evidence-based clinical practice and multidisciplinary collaborative work are particularly welcome. Regular sections in the journal include: editorials, commentaries, reviews (including systematic overviews and meta-analyses), original research and reports, and book reviews. Its scope embraces all aspects of clinical drug development and therapeutics, including: Rational therapeutics Evidence-based practice Safety, cost-effectiveness and clinical efficacy of drugs Drug interactions Clinical impact of drug formulations Pharmacogenetics Personalised, stratified and translational medicine Clinical pharmacokinetics.
期刊最新文献
TH-302: A Highly Selective Hypoxia-Activated Prodrug for Treating PARP Inhibitor–Resistant Cancers Potential Role of APC Mutations in the Prognosis and Targeted Therapy of Gastric Adenocarcinoma The Evaluation for Expandable Applications of Tislelizumab in First-Line Treatment for Advanced Gastric Cancer The Efficacy of Methazolamide Combined With Ibuprofen for Treating Acute Mountain Sickness Protein Kinase Inhibitors Indicated for Lung Cancer: Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics, Adverse Drug Reactions, and Evaluation in Clinical Trials
×
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