Utilisation clinique du COPA (cuffed oropharyngeal airway) |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. University of Utah Molecular Medicine Program, Salt Lake City, UT;2. Division of Vascular Neurology, Department of Neurology, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT;3. Division of Hematology and Hematologic Malignancies, Department of Internal Medicine, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT;4. Division of Microbiology and Immunology, Department of Pathology, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT;1. Réanimation néonatale et néonatologie, CHI de Créteil, 40, avenue de Verdun, 94000 Créteil, France;2. Médecine néonatale et réanimation polyvalente, CHU de Reims, 45, rue Cognacq-Jay, 51100 Reims, France;3. Département d’anesthésie pédiatrique, CHU de Reims, 45, rue Cognacq-Jay, 51100 Reims, France;1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha 410008, PR China;2. Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Central South University, Hunan Key Laboratory of Pharmacogenetics, Changsha 410078, PR China;3. Institute of Tcm-related Comorbid Depression, Nanjing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210064, PR China;4. Department of Neurology, Binzhou Central Hospital, Binzhou Medical College, Binzhou 251700, PR China;5. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Xiamen University, Xiamen 361102, PR China;6. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, 720 Rutland Ave, Ross Bldg 370B, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA;7. Department of Emergency Medicine, Thomas Jefferson University,1025 Walnut Street, 808 College Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectivesTo assess the performance of the COPA device during general anaesthesia.Study designProspective, clinical, open study.PatientsEighty patients scheduled for short elective surgical procedures under general anaesthesia not requiring tracheal intubation.MethodAfter premedication (midazolam, atropine), anaesthesia was induced with propofol (154 ± 40 mg = 2.47 ± 0.8 mg·kg−1) and alfentanil (1.14 ± 0.43 mg). The COPA device was inserted in a fashion similar to a Guedel airway device. The device was evaluated on the following criteria: correct choice of COPA size, ease of insertion, ability to obtain or maintain patent airway. Adverse reactions were noted, such as coughing, nausea, regurgitation, inhalation, and sore throat. The overall rating of the COPA as a “hand free device” was evaluated on the basis of excellent, good, fair, and poor.ResultsInsertion of the device was easy and in 70 cases successful on the first attempt. Jaw thrust or head tilt was necessary in half the cases. No patient necessitated intubation because of hypoxaemia or airway obstruction. Adverse reactions occurred in few cases and consisted of sore throat (always moderate) in 10% of the cases. COPA was evaluated as excellent or good in 80% of the cases.ConclusionCOPA is a convenient device for airway management in fasting patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective surgery in the supine position, in whom tracheal intubation is not indicated. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
