在动力空气净化呼吸器中使用 McGrath ™ 视频喉镜与直接喉镜的插管时间:随机对照试验。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Singapore medical journal Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-10-24 DOI:10.11622/smedj.2021165
Qing Yuan Goh, Sui An Lie, Zihui Tan, Pei Yi Brenda Tan, Shin Yi Ng, Hairil Rizal Abdullah
{"title":"在动力空气净化呼吸器中使用 McGrath ™ 视频喉镜与直接喉镜的插管时间:随机对照试验。","authors":"Qing Yuan Goh, Sui An Lie, Zihui Tan, Pei Yi Brenda Tan, Shin Yi Ng, Hairil Rizal Abdullah","doi":"10.11622/smedj.2021165","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, multiple guidelines have recommended videolaryngoscope (VL) for tracheal intubation. However, there is no evidence that VL reduces time to tracheal intubation, and this is important for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To simulate intubation of COVID-19 patients, we randomly assigned 28 elective surgical patients to be intubated with either McGrath™ MAC VL or direct laryngoscope (DL) by specialist anaesthetists who donned 3M™ Jupiter™ powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) and N95 masks. The primary outcome was time to intubation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median time to intubation was 61 s (interquartile range [IQR] 37-63 s) and 41.5 s (IQR 37-56 s) in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.35). The closest mean distance between the anaesthetist and patient during intubation was 21.6 ± 4.8 cm and 17.6 ± 5.3 cm in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.045). There were no significant differences in the median intubation difficulty scale scores, proportion of successful intubations at the first laryngoscopic attempt and proportion of intubations requiring adjuncts. All the patients underwent successful intubation with no adverse event.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no significant difference in the time to intubation of elective surgical patients with either McGrath™ VL or DL by specialist anaesthetists who donned PAPR and N95 masks. The distance between the anaesthetist and patient was significantly greater with VL. When resources are limited or disrupted during a pandemic, DL could be a viable alternative to VL for specialist anaesthetists.</p>","PeriodicalId":21752,"journal":{"name":"Singapore medical journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10863731/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Time to intubation with McGrath ™ videolaryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope in powered air-purifying respirator: a randomised controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Qing Yuan Goh, Sui An Lie, Zihui Tan, Pei Yi Brenda Tan, Shin Yi Ng, Hairil Rizal Abdullah\",\"doi\":\"10.11622/smedj.2021165\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, multiple guidelines have recommended videolaryngoscope (VL) for tracheal intubation. However, there is no evidence that VL reduces time to tracheal intubation, and this is important for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To simulate intubation of COVID-19 patients, we randomly assigned 28 elective surgical patients to be intubated with either McGrath™ MAC VL or direct laryngoscope (DL) by specialist anaesthetists who donned 3M™ Jupiter™ powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) and N95 masks. The primary outcome was time to intubation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The median time to intubation was 61 s (interquartile range [IQR] 37-63 s) and 41.5 s (IQR 37-56 s) in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.35). The closest mean distance between the anaesthetist and patient during intubation was 21.6 ± 4.8 cm and 17.6 ± 5.3 cm in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.045). There were no significant differences in the median intubation difficulty scale scores, proportion of successful intubations at the first laryngoscopic attempt and proportion of intubations requiring adjuncts. All the patients underwent successful intubation with no adverse event.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There was no significant difference in the time to intubation of elective surgical patients with either McGrath™ VL or DL by specialist anaesthetists who donned PAPR and N95 masks. The distance between the anaesthetist and patient was significantly greater with VL. When resources are limited or disrupted during a pandemic, DL could be a viable alternative to VL for specialist anaesthetists.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21752,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Singapore medical journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10863731/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Singapore medical journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2021165\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/10/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Singapore medical journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2021165","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/10/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:在冠状病毒病 2019(COVID-19)大流行期间,多个指南都建议使用视频喉镜(VL)进行气管插管。然而,没有证据表明视频喉镜能缩短气管插管时间,而这对于呼吸衰竭的 COVID-19 患者来说非常重要:为了模拟 COVID-19 患者的插管,我们随机分配了 28 名择期手术患者,由戴上 3M™ Jupiter™ 动力空气净化呼吸器 (PAPR) 和 N95 面罩的专业麻醉师使用 McGrath™ MAC VL 或直接喉镜 (DL) 进行插管。主要结果是插管时间:结果:VL 组和 DL 组插管时间的中位数分别为 61 秒(四分位距[IQR] 37-63 秒)和 41.5 秒(IQR 37-56 秒)(P = 0.35)。在插管过程中,VL 组和 DL 组麻醉师与患者之间的最近平均距离分别为 21.6 ± 4.8 厘米和 17.6 ± 5.3 厘米(P = 0.045)。插管难度量表的中位数评分、首次喉镜下尝试成功插管的比例和需要辅助插管的比例均无明显差异。所有患者均成功插管,无不良事件发生:结论:佩戴 PAPR 和 N95 口罩的专科麻醉师使用 McGrath™ VL 或 DL 为择期手术患者插管的时间没有明显差异。使用 VL 时,麻醉师与患者之间的距离明显更远。在大流行期间,当资源有限或中断时,DL 可能是专科麻醉师替代 VL 的一种可行方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Time to intubation with McGrath ™ videolaryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope in powered air-purifying respirator: a randomised controlled trial.

Introduction: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, multiple guidelines have recommended videolaryngoscope (VL) for tracheal intubation. However, there is no evidence that VL reduces time to tracheal intubation, and this is important for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure.

Methods: To simulate intubation of COVID-19 patients, we randomly assigned 28 elective surgical patients to be intubated with either McGrath™ MAC VL or direct laryngoscope (DL) by specialist anaesthetists who donned 3M™ Jupiter™ powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) and N95 masks. The primary outcome was time to intubation.

Results: The median time to intubation was 61 s (interquartile range [IQR] 37-63 s) and 41.5 s (IQR 37-56 s) in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.35). The closest mean distance between the anaesthetist and patient during intubation was 21.6 ± 4.8 cm and 17.6 ± 5.3 cm in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.045). There were no significant differences in the median intubation difficulty scale scores, proportion of successful intubations at the first laryngoscopic attempt and proportion of intubations requiring adjuncts. All the patients underwent successful intubation with no adverse event.

Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the time to intubation of elective surgical patients with either McGrath™ VL or DL by specialist anaesthetists who donned PAPR and N95 masks. The distance between the anaesthetist and patient was significantly greater with VL. When resources are limited or disrupted during a pandemic, DL could be a viable alternative to VL for specialist anaesthetists.

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
Singapore medical journal
Singapore medical journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
3.70%
发文量
149
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The Singapore Medical Journal (SMJ) is the monthly publication of Singapore Medical Association (SMA). The Journal aims to advance medical practice and clinical research by publishing high-quality articles that add to the clinical knowledge of physicians in Singapore and worldwide. SMJ is a general medical journal that focuses on all aspects of human health. The Journal publishes commissioned reviews, commentaries and editorials, original research, a small number of outstanding case reports, continuing medical education articles (ECG Series, Clinics in Diagnostic Imaging, Pictorial Essays, Practice Integration & Life-long Learning [PILL] Series), and short communications in the form of letters to the editor.
期刊最新文献
Attitudes and practices of exercise among pregnant mothers in Singapore. Perceptions and acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine among pregnant and lactating women in Singapore: a pre-vaccine rollout cross-sectional study. Perspectives on end-of-life care of critically ill surgical patients: a survey of anaesthesiology residents. Determining diabetic kidney disease severity using traditional Chinese medicine syndrome classification. Knowledge and awareness of perinatal antiviral use in the prevention of mother-to-child hepatitis B virus transmission among maternal chronic hepatitis carriers.
×
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