一项转化研究,评估在模拟猪多发性创伤插管过程中使用加固型便携式氧气浓缩器和氧气瓶的情况

Craig Nowadly MD, Nola Shepard RLATg, Montane Silverman MD, Jason Rall PhD
{"title":"一项转化研究,评估在模拟猪多发性创伤插管过程中使用加固型便携式氧气浓缩器和氧气瓶的情况","authors":"Craig Nowadly MD,&nbsp;Nola Shepard RLATg,&nbsp;Montane Silverman MD,&nbsp;Jason Rall PhD","doi":"10.1002/emp2.13294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) are medical devices that use filters to selectively remove nitrogen from ambient air to produce concentrated, medical-grade oxygen. This is the first study to evaluate a ruggedized POC's performance during simulated polytrauma intubation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Twenty-seven swine were intubated and anesthetized with ketamine. At <i>T</i> = 0, animals were extubated, received a chest wall injury, a tibia fracture, and 20% total blood volume controlled hemorrhage was initiated. At <i>T</i> = 10 min, the swine were pre-oxygenated using a bag-valve mask connected to one of three randomized oxygen sources: (1) a ruggedized POC, (2) a M-15 oxygen cylinder, or (3) room air (control). At <i>T</i> = 12 min, animals were re-intubated to simulate polytrauma intubation and connected to the test oxygen source for the remainder of the experiment. Surviving animals entered a 2-h period where partial pressure of oxygen (PaO<sub>2</sub>), oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>), and regional oxygen saturation (rSO<sub>2</sub>) were monitored. Groups were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Fisher's exact, log-rank analysis, or mixed-effects model as appropriate.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>All animals survived except one in the POC group. Mixed-effects models revealed differences between groups with regards to PaO<sub>2</sub> (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001) and SpO<sub>2</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.006). Based on post hoc analysis, oxygen cylinder PaO<sub>2</sub> was superior to both POC and control, but there were no differences between POC and control PaO<sub>2</sub>. There were statistically and clinically significant differences in SpO<sub>2</sub> during periods of pre-oxygenation (<i>T</i> = 10‒12 min), intubation (<i>T</i> = 12‒14 min), and immediately after intubation (<i>T</i> = 14‒20 min). The POC battery was consumed in 43 ± 13 min.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>In our swine model, a single, ruggedized POC provided inferior amounts of oxygen supplementation compared to an oxygen cylinder and performed no better than room air.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":73967,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/emp2.13294","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A translational study evaluating a ruggedized portable oxygen concentrator versus an oxygen cylinder in simulated polytrauma intubation of swine\",\"authors\":\"Craig Nowadly MD,&nbsp;Nola Shepard RLATg,&nbsp;Montane Silverman MD,&nbsp;Jason Rall PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/emp2.13294\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>Portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) are medical devices that use filters to selectively remove nitrogen from ambient air to produce concentrated, medical-grade oxygen. This is the first study to evaluate a ruggedized POC's performance during simulated polytrauma intubation.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Twenty-seven swine were intubated and anesthetized with ketamine. At <i>T</i> = 0, animals were extubated, received a chest wall injury, a tibia fracture, and 20% total blood volume controlled hemorrhage was initiated. At <i>T</i> = 10 min, the swine were pre-oxygenated using a bag-valve mask connected to one of three randomized oxygen sources: (1) a ruggedized POC, (2) a M-15 oxygen cylinder, or (3) room air (control). At <i>T</i> = 12 min, animals were re-intubated to simulate polytrauma intubation and connected to the test oxygen source for the remainder of the experiment. Surviving animals entered a 2-h period where partial pressure of oxygen (PaO<sub>2</sub>), oxygen saturation (SpO<sub>2</sub>), and regional oxygen saturation (rSO<sub>2</sub>) were monitored. Groups were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Fisher's exact, log-rank analysis, or mixed-effects model as appropriate.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>All animals survived except one in the POC group. Mixed-effects models revealed differences between groups with regards to PaO<sub>2</sub> (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.0001) and SpO<sub>2</sub> (<i>p</i> = 0.006). Based on post hoc analysis, oxygen cylinder PaO<sub>2</sub> was superior to both POC and control, but there were no differences between POC and control PaO<sub>2</sub>. There were statistically and clinically significant differences in SpO<sub>2</sub> during periods of pre-oxygenation (<i>T</i> = 10‒12 min), intubation (<i>T</i> = 12‒14 min), and immediately after intubation (<i>T</i> = 14‒20 min). The POC battery was consumed in 43 ± 13 min.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>In our swine model, a single, ruggedized POC provided inferior amounts of oxygen supplementation compared to an oxygen cylinder and performed no better than room air.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73967,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/emp2.13294\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/emp2.13294\",\"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":"Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/emp2.13294","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 便携式氧气浓缩器 (POC) 是一种医疗设备,它使用过滤器选择性地去除环境空气中的氮气,从而产生浓缩的医用氧气。这是首次评估耐用型 POC 在模拟多发性创伤插管过程中性能的研究。 方法 对 27 头猪进行插管并用氯胺酮麻醉。T = 0时,动物拔管,胸壁受伤,胫骨骨折,开始20%总血量控制出血。T = 10 分钟时,使用连接到三种随机氧气源之一的袋阀面罩对猪进行预吸氧:(1) 坚固耐用的 POC、(2) M-15 氧气瓶或 (3) 室内空气(对照组)。在 T = 12 分钟时,对动物重新插管以模拟多发性创伤插管,并在实验的剩余时间内连接测试氧气源。存活的动物进入 2 小时的监测期,在此期间监测氧分压 (PaO2)、血氧饱和度 (SpO2) 和区域血氧饱和度 (rSO2)。根据情况使用方差分析(ANOVA)、费雪精确法、对数秩分析或混合效应模型对各组进行比较。 结果 除 POC 组的一只动物外,所有动物均存活。混合效应模型显示各组之间在 PaO2(p < 0.0001)和 SpO2(p = 0.006)方面存在差异。根据事后分析,氧气瓶的 PaO2 优于 POC 组和对照组,但 POC 组和对照组的 PaO2 没有差异。在吸氧前(T = 10-12 分钟)、插管(T = 12-14 分钟)和插管后立即吸氧(T = 14-20 分钟)期间,SpO2 在统计学和临床上存在显著差异。POC 电池消耗时间为 43 ± 13 分钟。 结论 在我们的猪模型中,与氧气瓶相比,单个坚固耐用的 POC 提供的氧气补充量较低,其性能也不优于室内空气。
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
A translational study evaluating a ruggedized portable oxygen concentrator versus an oxygen cylinder in simulated polytrauma intubation of swine

Objectives

Portable oxygen concentrators (POCs) are medical devices that use filters to selectively remove nitrogen from ambient air to produce concentrated, medical-grade oxygen. This is the first study to evaluate a ruggedized POC's performance during simulated polytrauma intubation.

Methods

Twenty-seven swine were intubated and anesthetized with ketamine. At T = 0, animals were extubated, received a chest wall injury, a tibia fracture, and 20% total blood volume controlled hemorrhage was initiated. At T = 10 min, the swine were pre-oxygenated using a bag-valve mask connected to one of three randomized oxygen sources: (1) a ruggedized POC, (2) a M-15 oxygen cylinder, or (3) room air (control). At T = 12 min, animals were re-intubated to simulate polytrauma intubation and connected to the test oxygen source for the remainder of the experiment. Surviving animals entered a 2-h period where partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2), oxygen saturation (SpO2), and regional oxygen saturation (rSO2) were monitored. Groups were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Fisher's exact, log-rank analysis, or mixed-effects model as appropriate.

Results

All animals survived except one in the POC group. Mixed-effects models revealed differences between groups with regards to PaO2 (p < 0.0001) and SpO2 (p = 0.006). Based on post hoc analysis, oxygen cylinder PaO2 was superior to both POC and control, but there were no differences between POC and control PaO2. There were statistically and clinically significant differences in SpO2 during periods of pre-oxygenation (T = 10‒12 min), intubation (T = 12‒14 min), and immediately after intubation (T = 14‒20 min). The POC battery was consumed in 43 ± 13 min.

Conclusion

In our swine model, a single, ruggedized POC provided inferior amounts of oxygen supplementation compared to an oxygen cylinder and performed no better than room air.

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
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊最新文献
Passage of vaginal tissue in an non-pregnant adolescent A woman with sudden unilateral vision loss Factors influencing emergency medicine worker shift satisfaction: A rapid assessment of wellness in the emergency department The Dunning‒Kruger effect in resident predicted and actual performance on the American Board of Emergency Medicine in-training examination A multicenter randomized control trial: Point-of-care syndromic assessment versus standard testing in urgent care center patients with acute respiratory illness
×
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