新生儿气管插管的用药前实践:来自epippain2前瞻性队列研究的结果以及与epippain1的比较

E. Walter-Nicolet, L. Marchand-martin, I. Guellec, V. Biran, M. Moktari, E. Zana-Taieb, J. Magny, L. Desfrère, P. Waszak, P. Boileau, G. Chauvin, L. de Saint Blanquat, S. Borrhomée, S. Droutman, Mona Merhi, V. Zupan, Leila Karoui, P. Cimerman, R. Carbajal, X. Durrmeyer
{"title":"新生儿气管插管的用药前实践:来自epippain2前瞻性队列研究的结果以及与epippain1的比较","authors":"E. Walter-Nicolet, L. Marchand-martin, I. Guellec, V. Biran, M. Moktari, E. Zana-Taieb, J. Magny, L. Desfrère, P. Waszak, P. Boileau, G. Chauvin, L. de Saint Blanquat, S. Borrhomée, S. Droutman, Mona Merhi, V. Zupan, Leila Karoui, P. Cimerman, R. Carbajal, X. Durrmeyer","doi":"10.1002/pne2.12048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"To describe the frequency and nature of premedication practices for neonatal tracheal intubation (TI) in 2011; to identify independent risk factors for the absence of premedication; to compare data with those from 2005 and to confront observed practices with current recommendations. Data concerning TI performed in neonates during the first 14 days of their admission to participating neonatal/pediatric intensive care units were prospectively collected at the bedside. This study was part of the Epidemiology of Procedural Pain in Neonates study (EPIPPAIN 2) conducted in 16 tertiary care units in the region of Paris, France, in 2011. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with premedication use and multilevel analysis to identify center effect. Results were compared with those of the EPIPPAIN 1 study, conducted in 2005 with a similar design, and to a current guidance for the clinician for this procedure. One hundred and twenty‐one intubations carried out in 121 patients were analyzed. The specific premedication rate was 47% and drugs used included mainly propofol (26%), sufentanil (24%), and ketamine (12%). Three factors were associated with the use of a specific premedication: nonemergent TI (Odds ratio (OR) [95% CI]: 5.3 [1.49‐20.80]), existence of a specific written protocol in the ward (OR [95% CI]:4.80 [2.12‐11.57]), and the absence of a nonspecific concurrent analgesia infusion before TI (OR [95% CI]: 3.41 [1.46‐8.45]). No center effect was observed. The specific premedication rate was lower than the 56% rate observed in 2005. The drugs used were more homogenous and consistent with the current recommendations than in 2005, especially in centers with a specific written protocol. Premedication use prior to neonatal TI was low, even for nonemergent procedures. Scientific consensus, implementation of international or national recommendations, and local written protocols are urgently needed to improve premedication practices for neonatal intubation.","PeriodicalId":19634,"journal":{"name":"Paediatric & Neonatal Pain","volume":"38 1","pages":"46 - 58"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Premedication practices for neonatal tracheal intubation: Results from the EPIPPAIN 2 prospective cohort study and comparison with EPIPPAIN 1\",\"authors\":\"E. Walter-Nicolet, L. Marchand-martin, I. Guellec, V. Biran, M. Moktari, E. Zana-Taieb, J. Magny, L. Desfrère, P. Waszak, P. Boileau, G. Chauvin, L. de Saint Blanquat, S. Borrhomée, S. Droutman, Mona Merhi, V. Zupan, Leila Karoui, P. Cimerman, R. Carbajal, X. Durrmeyer\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/pne2.12048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"To describe the frequency and nature of premedication practices for neonatal tracheal intubation (TI) in 2011; to identify independent risk factors for the absence of premedication; to compare data with those from 2005 and to confront observed practices with current recommendations. Data concerning TI performed in neonates during the first 14 days of their admission to participating neonatal/pediatric intensive care units were prospectively collected at the bedside. This study was part of the Epidemiology of Procedural Pain in Neonates study (EPIPPAIN 2) conducted in 16 tertiary care units in the region of Paris, France, in 2011. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with premedication use and multilevel analysis to identify center effect. Results were compared with those of the EPIPPAIN 1 study, conducted in 2005 with a similar design, and to a current guidance for the clinician for this procedure. One hundred and twenty‐one intubations carried out in 121 patients were analyzed. The specific premedication rate was 47% and drugs used included mainly propofol (26%), sufentanil (24%), and ketamine (12%). Three factors were associated with the use of a specific premedication: nonemergent TI (Odds ratio (OR) [95% CI]: 5.3 [1.49‐20.80]), existence of a specific written protocol in the ward (OR [95% CI]:4.80 [2.12‐11.57]), and the absence of a nonspecific concurrent analgesia infusion before TI (OR [95% CI]: 3.41 [1.46‐8.45]). No center effect was observed. The specific premedication rate was lower than the 56% rate observed in 2005. The drugs used were more homogenous and consistent with the current recommendations than in 2005, especially in centers with a specific written protocol. Premedication use prior to neonatal TI was low, even for nonemergent procedures. Scientific consensus, implementation of international or national recommendations, and local written protocols are urgently needed to improve premedication practices for neonatal intubation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19634,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Paediatric & Neonatal Pain\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"46 - 58\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Paediatric & Neonatal Pain\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/pne2.12048\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Paediatric & Neonatal Pain","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pne2.12048","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

描述2011年新生儿气管插管(TI)用药前操作的频率和性质;确定缺乏预用药的独立危险因素;与2005年的数据进行比较,并将观察到的做法与目前的建议进行比较。在新生儿/儿童重症监护病房入院前14天内,前瞻性地在床边收集有关TI的数据。这项研究是2011年在法国巴黎地区16个三级医疗单位开展的新生儿程序性疼痛流行病学研究(EPIPPAIN 2)的一部分。多因素分析确定药物前使用的相关因素,多水平分析确定中心效应。结果与2005年进行的epppain 1研究的结果进行了比较,该研究具有类似的设计,并与当前临床医生对该手术的指导进行了比较。对121例患者的121例插管进行了分析。具体用药前率为47%,使用药物主要为异丙酚(26%)、舒芬太尼(24%)、氯胺酮(12%)。三个因素与使用特定的预用药相关:非紧急TI(优势比(OR) [95% CI]: 5.3[1.49‐20.80]),病房中存在特定的书面协议(OR [95% CI]:4.80[2.12‐11.57]),以及TI前没有非特异性的并发镇痛输注(OR [95% CI]: 3.41[1.46‐8.45])。未观察到中心效应。具体的用药前率低于2005年的56%。与2005年相比,使用的药物更加均匀,与目前的建议更加一致,特别是在有具体书面协议的中心。在新生儿TI之前的药物前使用是低的,即使是非紧急程序。迫切需要科学共识、实施国际或国家建议以及地方书面协议,以改善新生儿插管的用药前实践。
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
Premedication practices for neonatal tracheal intubation: Results from the EPIPPAIN 2 prospective cohort study and comparison with EPIPPAIN 1
To describe the frequency and nature of premedication practices for neonatal tracheal intubation (TI) in 2011; to identify independent risk factors for the absence of premedication; to compare data with those from 2005 and to confront observed practices with current recommendations. Data concerning TI performed in neonates during the first 14 days of their admission to participating neonatal/pediatric intensive care units were prospectively collected at the bedside. This study was part of the Epidemiology of Procedural Pain in Neonates study (EPIPPAIN 2) conducted in 16 tertiary care units in the region of Paris, France, in 2011. Multivariate analysis was used to identify factors associated with premedication use and multilevel analysis to identify center effect. Results were compared with those of the EPIPPAIN 1 study, conducted in 2005 with a similar design, and to a current guidance for the clinician for this procedure. One hundred and twenty‐one intubations carried out in 121 patients were analyzed. The specific premedication rate was 47% and drugs used included mainly propofol (26%), sufentanil (24%), and ketamine (12%). Three factors were associated with the use of a specific premedication: nonemergent TI (Odds ratio (OR) [95% CI]: 5.3 [1.49‐20.80]), existence of a specific written protocol in the ward (OR [95% CI]:4.80 [2.12‐11.57]), and the absence of a nonspecific concurrent analgesia infusion before TI (OR [95% CI]: 3.41 [1.46‐8.45]). No center effect was observed. The specific premedication rate was lower than the 56% rate observed in 2005. The drugs used were more homogenous and consistent with the current recommendations than in 2005, especially in centers with a specific written protocol. Premedication use prior to neonatal TI was low, even for nonemergent procedures. Scientific consensus, implementation of international or national recommendations, and local written protocols are urgently needed to improve premedication practices for neonatal intubation.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Perceived distress due to nasopharyngeal swab collection: Correspondence. "You just want someone to help": Outcomes that matter to parents when their child is treated for chronic pain. Prevalence of chronic pain in children and adolescents with psychiatric conditions. Positive effects of a child-centered intervention on children's fear and pain during needle procedures. Overview of radiotherapy-induced chronic pain in childhood cancer survivors: A narrative review.
×
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