• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Prehospital emergency care >Discontinuation of droperidol for the control of acutely agitated out-of-hospital patients.
【24h】

Discontinuation of droperidol for the control of acutely agitated out-of-hospital patients.

机译：停用氟哌利多以控制急性躁动的院外患者。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Objective. To identify the effects of the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for sedation of agitated out-of-hospital patients. Methods. This was a retrospective review conducted January 1, 2001, through December 5, 2002, of patients with an out-of-hospital diagnosis of agitation who received either droperidol or midazolam prior to arrival in the emergency department (ED). The need for continuous cardiac or pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, critical care ED management, intensive care unit admission, and mortality was reviewed. Results. Seventy-one patients received droperidol or midazolam for acute agitation in the out-of-hospital setting. Forty-one patients received droperidol in 2001 (D2001); three patients received midazolam in 2001 (M2001). No patients received droperidol in 2002, and 27 patients received midazolam (M2002). Comparing the D2001 and M2002 groups, the need for continuous pulse oximetry monitoring in the ED [14/41 (34.1%) versus 18/27 (66.7%)], intubations [4/41 (9.8%) versus 10/27 (37.0%)], critical emergency medical services transports [5/41 (12.2%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], critical ED care cases [6/41 (14.6%) versus 11/27 (40.7%)], and intensive care unit admissions [6/13 (46.2%) versus 14/15 (93.3%)] were increased in the M2002 group. No difference was found in the frequencies of ED cardiac monitoring, hospital admission, complications, or death. Conclusions. Since the removal of droperidol as a treatment option for out-of-hospital agitated patients, the authors have observed an increased frequency of continuous pulse oximetry monitoring, intubation, ED critical care management, and intensive care unit admission in patients requiring chemical sedation for control of agitation in the out-of-hospital setting.
机译：目的。确定去除氟哌多尔作为镇静躁动的住院病人镇静剂的治疗选择的效果。方法。这是一项对2001年1月1日至2002年12月5日进行院外诊断的躁动患者的回顾性审查，该患者在到达急诊室（ED）之前接受了氟哌啶或咪达唑仑治疗。回顾了对连续性心脏或脉搏血氧饱和度监测，插管，重症监护ED管理，重症监护病房入院和死亡率的需求。结果。 71名患者在院外接受了氟哌利多或咪达唑仑的急性激动治疗。 2001年有41例患者接受了氟哌利多（D2001）; 2001年，三名患者接受了咪达唑仑（M2001）。 2002年无患者接受氟哌利多治疗，27例患者接受咪达唑仑（M2002）治疗。比较D2001和M2002组，急诊室需要连续脉搏血氧饱和度监测[14/41（34.1％）vs 18/27（66.7％）]，插管[4/41（9.8％）vs 10/27（37.0） ％）]，紧急紧急医疗服务运输[5/41（12.2％）与11/27（40.7％）]，紧急急诊护理案例[6/41（14.6％）与11/27（40.7％）]，以及M2002组的重症监护病房入院率[6/13（46.2％）比14/15（93.3％）]增加。在ED心脏监护，住院，并发症或死亡的频率上未发现差异。结论。自从取消氟哌利多作为院外躁动患者的治疗选择以来，作者观察到需要化学镇静来控制患者的连续脉搏血氧饱和度监测，插管，急诊急诊护理和重症监护病房入院的频率增加院外环境中的躁动。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号