Dergiler / Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine / 2021 / Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Intravascular AccessEffectiveness

Sayfa
61–62
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

As indicated by many studies, the intraosseous access is a full-fledged intravascular access, through which we can administer both drugs to the patient and use fluid resuscitation or transfuse blood and blood products.According to the research by Castle et al. (6) the mean length of the procedure for obtaining intraosseous access with PPE AGP was 36±9.8 seconds and was statistically significantly shorter than with obtaining intravascular access (126.9±39.8; p

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:A year ago, the world faced the problem of infections with the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which quickly became a pandemic.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:The risk of infection for emergency medical personnel is relatively high, so in the era of a pandemic, the best solution would be for medical personnel to provide medical assistance to patients in pre-hospital conditions, when wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) (1,2).
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:As indicated by many studies, the intraosseous access is a full-fledged intravascular access, through which we can administer both drugs to the patient and use fluid resuscitation or transfuse blood and blood products.According to the research by Castle et al. (6) the mean length of the procedure for obtaining intraosseous access with PPE AGP was 36±9.8 seconds and was statistically significantly shorter than with obtaining intravascular access (126.9±39.8; p
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

A year ago, the world faced the problem of infections with the new SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus, which quickly became a pandemic. The risk of infection for emergency medical personnel is relatively high, so in the era of a pandemic, the best solution would be for medical personnel to provide medical assistance to patients in pre-hospital conditions, when wearing full personal protective equipment (PPE) for aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) (1,2). However, as many studies show, the use of protective suits may reduce the effectiveness of the procedures performed, both in terms of the effectiveness of a procedure and the extension of its time (3-5). In many clinical situations where drugs must be administered quickly or fluid resuscitation is started, prompt intravascular access is a priority for emergency care. However, in the case of a collapsed vascular bed, and the use of prophylactic double gloves, accessing it can be difficult or even impossible. Then an alternative to peripheral intravenous access (PIV) could be intraosseous access (IO). As indicated by many studies, the intraosseous access is a full-fledged intravascular access, through which we can administer both drugs to the patient and use fluid resuscitation or transfuse blood and blood products.According to the research by Castle et al. (6) the mean length of the procedure for obtaining intraosseous access with PPE AGP was 36±9.8 seconds and was statistically significantly shorter than with obtaining intravascular access (126.9±39.8; p

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

Szarpak, L., Katipoğlu, B., Evrin, T., Drozd, A., Kosior, D., Borkowska, G., Wozniak, S., Gasecka, A. (2022). Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Intravascular AccessEffectiveness. Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine, Cilt: 20 - Sayı: 1, 61–62. https://ajindex.com/articles/507901

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (8)

  1. Dzieciatkowski T, Szarpak L, Filipiak KJ, Jaguszewski M, Ladny JR, Smereka J. COVID-19 challenge for modern medicine. Cardiol J. 2020;27:175-83
  2. Korkut S, Evrin T, Katipoglu B, Smereka J, Drozd A, Szarpak L. Resuscitation of Patient with Suspected/Confirmed COVID-19: How to Increase Medical Staff Safety. Eurasian J Emerg Med. 2020;19:184-5
  3. Malysz M, Dabrowski M, Böttiger BW, Smerekaet J, Kulak K, Szarpak A, et al. Resuscitation of the patient with suspected/confirmed COVID-19 when wearing personal protective equipment: A randomized multicenter crossover simulation trial. Cardiol J. 2020;27:497-506
  4. Ludwin K, Bialka S, Czyzewski L, Smereka J, Dabrowski M, Dabrowska A, et al. Video laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation of adult patients with suspected/ confirmed COVID-19. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Disaster Emerg Med J. 2020;5:85-97
  5. Smereka J, Szarpak L, Filipiak KJ, Jaguszewski M, Ladny JR. Which intravascular access should we use in patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19? Resuscitation. 2020;151:8-9
  6. Castle N, Owen R, Hann M. Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills. Resuscitation. 2009;80:1290- 5
  7. Lamhaut L, Dagron C, Apriotesei R. Comparison of intravenous and intraosseous access by pre-hospital medical emergency personnel with and without CBRN protective equipment. Resuscitation. 2010;81:65-8
  8. Szarpak L, Ramirez JG, Buljan D, Drozd A, Madziała M, Czyzewski L. Comparison of Bone Injection Gun and Jamshidi intraosseous access devices by paramedics with and without chemical-biological-radiological-nuclear personal protective equipment: a randomized, crossover, manikin trial. Am J Emerg Med. 2016;34:1307-8