Skip to main content
Log in

Algorithmen für das Management des schwierigen Atemwegs innerhalb des Krankenhauses

Comparison of algorithms for the management of the difficult airway

  • Leitthema
  • Published:
Notfall + Rettungsmedizin Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Das Management des schwierigen Atemwegs und damit die Sicherstellung der Oxygenierung ist die zentrale Aufgabe des Anästhesisten. Respiratorische Probleme stellen nach wie vor die häufigste Einzelursache für rein anästhesiebedingte Zwischenfälle mit schlechtem Outcome dar. Algorithmen sind stufenartige Verfahrensweisen, die aus einer Vielzahl von Empfehlungen abgeleitet werden. Sie sind geeignet, Abläufe zu standardisieren und zu trainieren. Obwohl letztendlich nicht bewiesen werden kann, dass Strategien das Outcome verbessern, sind Experten der Meinung, dass dies im Management des schwierigen Atemwegs eindeutig der Fall ist. Wichtiger als die Frage, welcher Algorithmus, welche Technik und welche Instrumente zur Anwendung kommen, ist, dass jede anästhesiologische Abteilung einen eigenen Algorithmus hat und praktiziert. Dies vor allem darum, weil die eigene Erfahrung im Umgang mit spezifischen Intubationshilfen und Materialien unbedingt in den gewählten Algorithmus einfließen muss. Voraussetzung für den erfolgreichen Einsatz im Notfall ist der regelmäßige Einsatz in der täglichen Praxis. Dies gelingt dann leichter, wenn der Algorithmus möglichst einfach gehalten wird und eine Beschränkung auf wenige Hilfsmittel erfolgt.

Abstract

Management of the difficult airway and maintenance of the oxygenation are the most important tasks of the anesthetist. Respiratory problems are still the most single cause for anesthetic related accidents with bad outcome. Algorithms are stepwise procedures developed from a great number of recommendations. They are well suited to automate and train processes. There is strong agreement among consultants that specific strategies lead to improved outcome, although, strictly spoken, the degree of benefit on airway management cannot be clearly determined. More important than the question, which algorithm, which technique and which instruments should be used is that each department has and practices its own algorithm. This strongly depends on experience with different devices. Daily practice is the condition for the successful use in an emergency situation. The management is easier if one uses a simple algorithm and as few instruments as possible.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Abb. 1
Abb. 2
Abb. 3

Literatur

  1. Amalberti R (2000) The paradoxes of almost totally safe transportation systems. Safety Sci 0: 1–18

    Google Scholar 

  2. American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway (2003) Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway. An updated report. Anesthesiology 95: 1269–1277

    Google Scholar 

  3. Boisson-Bertrand D, Bourgain JL, Camboulives J et al. (1996) Difficult intubation. French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care. A collective expertise. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 15: 207–214

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Braun U, Goldmann K, Hempel V, Krier C (2004) Airway Management. Leitlinie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin. Anaesth Intensivmed 45: 302–306

    Google Scholar 

  5. Caplan RA, Posner KL, Ward RJ, Cheney FW (1990) Adverse respiratory events in anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 72: 828–833

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Cheney FW, Posner KL, Lee LA et al. (2006) Trends in anesthesia-related death and brain damage: A closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 105: 1081–1086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Cheney FW (1994) Committee on professional liabilty – overview. ASA Newsletter 58: 7–10

    Google Scholar 

  8. Combes X, Le Roux B, Suen P et al. (2004) Unanticipated difficult airway in anesthetized patients: prospective validation of a management algorithm. Anesthesiology 100: 1146–1150

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Crosby ET, Cooper RM, Douglas MJ et al. (1998) The unanticipated difficult airway with recommendations for management. Can J Anaesth 45: 757–776

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Gannon K (1991) Mortality associated with anaesthesia. A case review study. Anaesthesia 46: 962–966

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hagberg CA, Benumof JL (2007) The American Society of Anesthesiologists‘ management of the different airway algorithm and explanation-analysis of the algorithm. In: Hagberg CA (ed) Benumof’s airway management, 2nd edn. Mosby Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 236–251

  12. Henderson JJ, Popat M, Latto IP, Pearce AC (2004) Difficult Airway Society guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult intubation. Anaesthesia 59: 675–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Heidegger T, Gerig HJ, Henderson JJ (2005) Strategies and algorithms for management of the difficult airway. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 19: 661–674

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Heidegger T, Gerig HJ, Ulrich B, Kreienbühl G (2001) Validation of a simple algorithm for tracheal intubation: daily practice is the key to success in emergencies – an analysis of 13,248 intubations. Anesth Analg 92: 517–522

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Klock PA Jr, Benumof JL (2007) Definition and incidence of the difficult airway. In: Hagberg CA (ed) Benumof’s airway management, 2nd edn. Mosby Elsevier, Philadelphia, pp 215–220

  16. Lomas J, Anderson GM, Domnick-Pierrek K et al. (1989) Do practice guidelines guide practice? The effect of a consensus statement on the practice of physicians. N Engl J Med 321: 1306–1311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nolan JP, Deakin CD, Soar J et al. (2005) European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2005 Section 4. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation (Suppl 1) 67: S39–S86

  18. Pasch T (1995) Standards, Richtlinien, Empfehlungen. In: List WF, Metzler H, Pasch T (Hrsg) Monitoring in Anästhesie und Intensivmedizin, 2. Aufl. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, S 124–135

  19. Reason J (2000) Human error: models and management. BMJ 320: 768–770

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Shoemaker TS (1999) Practice guidelines in cardiovascular anaesthesia. In: Tuman KJ (ed) Outcome measurement in cardiovascular medicine. A Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists monograph. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, pp 125–157

  21. SIAARTI Task Force (2005) Recommendation for airway control and difficult airway management. Minerva Anestesiol 71: 617–657

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stoelting R (1999) Results of APSF survey regarding anesthesia patient safety issues. Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation Newsletter 13: 6–7

    Google Scholar 

  23. Wong DT, Prabhu AJ, Coloma M et al. (2003) What is the minimum training required for successful cricothyroidotomy. Anesthesiology 98: 349–353

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A et al. (1999) Clinical guidelines. Potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ 318: 527–530

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. Heidegger.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heidegger, T., Gerig, H. Algorithmen für das Management des schwierigen Atemwegs innerhalb des Krankenhauses. Notfall Rettungsmed 10, 476–481 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-007-0969-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10049-007-0969-5

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Navigation