RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Studies have shown a bougie improves first-attempt success rates when used in combination with direct laryngoscopy during the initial attempt. The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of a bougie in combination with C-MAC (Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) improves first-attempt success rates of endotracheal intubation (ETI) compared with C-MAC with a traditional stylet. METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review using data collected on 371 intubations completed by a single air medical service using the C-MAC laryngoscope and either a bougie or a stylet. RESULTS: The overall success rate using C-MAC for ETI with either a bougie or a stylet was 83%. There was no statistically significant difference between first-attempt successful intubations using C-MAC and a bougie (82%) or a stylet (86%) (χ1 = 0.871, P = .351). There was no statistically significant difference between laryngoscopy grade and the number of attempts that resulted in a successful intubation (χ1 = 0.743, P = .7). CONCLUSION: There was no difference between first-attempt success rates using video laryngoscopy with a bougie, overall intubation success rates, or difficult intubation success rates compared with video laryngoscopy with a stylet, indicating that the purpose of a bougie as a rescue device did not hold true in the prehospital setting of our critical care air medical service.
Assuntos
Laringoscópios , Laringoscopia , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Cuidados Críticos , Gravação em Vídeo/métodosRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to analyze pediatric referrals for definite or possible appendicitis, to compare clinical predictors and laboratory values between patients with and without a final diagnosis of appendicitis, and to determine the accuracy of prereferral diagnostic interpretations of computed tomography scans, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging modalities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of pediatric patients referred from 2015 to 2019 to a tertiary care children's emergency department with definitive or possible appendicitis. Data abstracted included patient demographics, clinical symptoms, physical examination findings, laboratory results, and diagnostic imaging findings (by the referring center and the pediatric radiologist at the accepting center). An Alvarado and Appendicitis Inflammatory Response (AIR) score was calculated for each patient. RESULTS: Analysis was performed on 381 patients; 226 (59%) had a final diagnosis of appendicitis. Patients with appendicitis were more likely to have symptoms of nausea ( P < 0.0001) and vomiting ( P < 0.0001), have a higher mean temperature ( P = 0.025), right lower quadrant abdominal pain to palpation ( P = <0.0001), rebound tenderness ( P < 0.0001), a higher mean Alvarado score [5.35 vs 3.45 ( P < 0.0001)], and a higher mean AIR score [4.02 vs 2.17 ( P < 0.0001)]. Of the 97 diagnostic images initially interpreted as appendicitis by the referring center, 10 (10.3%) were read as no evidence of appendicitis. Of the 62 diagnostic images initially interpreted as "possible appendicitis" by the referring center, 34 (54.8%) were read as no evidence of appendicitis. Of those diagnostic images initially interpreted as "appendicitis" or "possible appendicitis" by the referring center, 24/89 (27.0%) of computed tomography scans, 17/62 (27.4%) of ultrasounds, and 3/8 (37.5%) of magnetic resonance imaging results were read as no evidence of appendicitis. CONCLUSIONS: Usage of established scoring algorithms, such as Alvarado and AIR, may decrease the unnecessary cost of diagnostic imaging and transfer to tertiary care. Virtual radiology consultations may be 1 potential solution to improve the referral process for pediatric appendicitis if initial interpretation is uncertain.