Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

A controlled rapid-sequence induction technique for infants may reduce unsafe actions and stress


Eich, C; Timmermann, A; Russo, S G; Cremer, S; Nickut, A; Strack, M; Weiss, M; Müller, M P (2009). A controlled rapid-sequence induction technique for infants may reduce unsafe actions and stress. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 53(9):1167-1172.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Classic rapid-sequence induction of anaesthesia (RSI-classic) in infants and small children presents a time-critical procedure, regularly associated with hypoxia. This results in high stress levels for the provider and may trigger unsafe actions. Hence, a controlled induction technique (RSI-controlled) that involves gentle mask ventilation until full non-depolarizing muscular blockade has become increasingly popular. Clinical observation suggests that RSI-controlled may reduce the adverse effects noted above. We aimed to evaluate both techniques with respect to unsafe actions and stress. METHODS: In this controlled, randomized simulator-based study, 30 male trainees and specialists in anaesthesiology performed a simulated anaesthesia induction in a 4-week-old infant with pyloric stenosis. Two different RSI techniques, classic and controlled, were applied to 15 candidates each. We recorded the incidence of hypoxaemia, forced mask ventilation, and intubation difficulties. In addition, we measured individual stress levels by ergospirometry, salivary cortisol, and alpha-amylase, as well as a post-trial questionnaire. RESULTS: Hypoxaemia always occurred in RSI-classic but not in RSI-controlled, repeatedly resulting in unsafe actions. Subjective stress perception and some objective stress levels were lower in the volunteers performing RSI-controlled. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that RSI-controlled, as compared with RSI-classic, leads to fewer unsafe actions and may reduce individual stress levels.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Classic rapid-sequence induction of anaesthesia (RSI-classic) in infants and small children presents a time-critical procedure, regularly associated with hypoxia. This results in high stress levels for the provider and may trigger unsafe actions. Hence, a controlled induction technique (RSI-controlled) that involves gentle mask ventilation until full non-depolarizing muscular blockade has become increasingly popular. Clinical observation suggests that RSI-controlled may reduce the adverse effects noted above. We aimed to evaluate both techniques with respect to unsafe actions and stress. METHODS: In this controlled, randomized simulator-based study, 30 male trainees and specialists in anaesthesiology performed a simulated anaesthesia induction in a 4-week-old infant with pyloric stenosis. Two different RSI techniques, classic and controlled, were applied to 15 candidates each. We recorded the incidence of hypoxaemia, forced mask ventilation, and intubation difficulties. In addition, we measured individual stress levels by ergospirometry, salivary cortisol, and alpha-amylase, as well as a post-trial questionnaire. RESULTS: Hypoxaemia always occurred in RSI-classic but not in RSI-controlled, repeatedly resulting in unsafe actions. Subjective stress perception and some objective stress levels were lower in the volunteers performing RSI-controlled. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that RSI-controlled, as compared with RSI-classic, leads to fewer unsafe actions and may reduce individual stress levels.

Statistics

Citations

16 citations in Web of Science®
18 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Children's Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Surgery
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:2009
Deposited On:23 Nov 2009 11:57
Last Modified:06 Dec 2017 21:55
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN:0001-5172
Additional Information:The definitive version is available at www.blackwell-synergy.com
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-6576.2009.02060.x
PubMed ID:19650801

Download

Full text not available from this repository.
View at publisher