Accuracy of airway ultrasound parameters to predict difficult airway using the LEMON criteria as a reference: A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.

IF 1.1 Q3 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.4103/2452-2473.366484
Mehran Sotoodehnia, Najmeh Abbasi, Razman Arabzadeh Bahri, Atefeh Abdollahi, Alireza Baratloo
{"title":"Accuracy of airway ultrasound parameters to predict difficult airway using the LEMON criteria as a reference: A cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study.","authors":"Mehran Sotoodehnia,&nbsp;Najmeh Abbasi,&nbsp;Razman Arabzadeh Bahri,&nbsp;Atefeh Abdollahi,&nbsp;Alireza Baratloo","doi":"10.4103/2452-2473.366484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Ultrasound (US) airway indexes were frequently compared with other scoring systems such as Mallampati score and Cormack - Lehane classification system, but to the best of our knowledge never with LEMON. Here, in this study, we evaluated the accuracy of some recommended airway US parameters in terms of screening difficult airway using the LEMON criteria as a reference.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study in which people with at least 18 years old coming to the emergency departments for any reason who had consent for participation, were enrolled with the simple random sampling method. Hyo-mental distance (HMD), skin to epiglottis distance (EP), and peri-epiglottic space to epiglottis to vocal cord ratio (PEP/E. VC) were the US indexes that were calculated in all participants. Using a preprepared checklist, measured US parameters were recorded. For each participant, the LEMON score variables were also assessed and recorded, and the cutoff point for considering as a difficult airway case, based on LEMON score, was 2. Demographic characteristics of the participants were also registered.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 299 cases with a mean age of 41.1 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.3-42.9), were participated. Based on LEMON score ≥2, 20 participants (6.7%) were categorized in difficult airway group. Comparison of the PEP/E. VC (<i>P</i> = 0.007) and EP distance (<i>P</i> = 0.049) of the participants based on LEMON score showed a statistically significant difference; but comparison of the means of HMD in the two groups was not statistically significant (<i>P</i> = 0.144). The median of EP of the participants was 7.70 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.70-9.40). The best cutoff point of EP distance for evaluating a difficult airway was 12.27 mm and more with the sensitivity of 35% and the specificity of 86.96% (accuracy = 0.614; 95% CI: 0.492-0.736). The median of PEP/E. VC was 1.01(IQR: 0.79-1.23). The best cutoff point of PEP/E. VC for evaluating a difficult airway was 0.88 and less with the sensitivity of 70% and the specificity of 67.38% (accuracy = 0.701; 95% CI: 0.583-0.818).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As per our results, PEP/E. VC and EP distance measured with sonography can be used in distinguishing the difficult airway, using the LEMON criteria as the reference. However, further studies are needed to use PEP/E. VC and EP distance as a part of reliable indexes.</p>","PeriodicalId":46536,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/66/75/TJEM-23-38.PMC9930393.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2452-2473.366484","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: Ultrasound (US) airway indexes were frequently compared with other scoring systems such as Mallampati score and Cormack - Lehane classification system, but to the best of our knowledge never with LEMON. Here, in this study, we evaluated the accuracy of some recommended airway US parameters in terms of screening difficult airway using the LEMON criteria as a reference.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study in which people with at least 18 years old coming to the emergency departments for any reason who had consent for participation, were enrolled with the simple random sampling method. Hyo-mental distance (HMD), skin to epiglottis distance (EP), and peri-epiglottic space to epiglottis to vocal cord ratio (PEP/E. VC) were the US indexes that were calculated in all participants. Using a preprepared checklist, measured US parameters were recorded. For each participant, the LEMON score variables were also assessed and recorded, and the cutoff point for considering as a difficult airway case, based on LEMON score, was 2. Demographic characteristics of the participants were also registered.

Results: A total of 299 cases with a mean age of 41.1 years (95% confidence interval [CI]: 39.3-42.9), were participated. Based on LEMON score ≥2, 20 participants (6.7%) were categorized in difficult airway group. Comparison of the PEP/E. VC (P = 0.007) and EP distance (P = 0.049) of the participants based on LEMON score showed a statistically significant difference; but comparison of the means of HMD in the two groups was not statistically significant (P = 0.144). The median of EP of the participants was 7.70 mm (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.70-9.40). The best cutoff point of EP distance for evaluating a difficult airway was 12.27 mm and more with the sensitivity of 35% and the specificity of 86.96% (accuracy = 0.614; 95% CI: 0.492-0.736). The median of PEP/E. VC was 1.01(IQR: 0.79-1.23). The best cutoff point of PEP/E. VC for evaluating a difficult airway was 0.88 and less with the sensitivity of 70% and the specificity of 67.38% (accuracy = 0.701; 95% CI: 0.583-0.818).

Conclusion: As per our results, PEP/E. VC and EP distance measured with sonography can be used in distinguishing the difficult airway, using the LEMON criteria as the reference. However, further studies are needed to use PEP/E. VC and EP distance as a part of reliable indexes.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
以LEMON为参考的气道超声参数预测困难气道的准确性:一项横断面诊断准确性研究。
目的:超声(US)气道指标经常与其他评分系统(如Mallampati评分和Cormack - Lehane评分系统)进行比较,但据我们所知从未与LEMON进行过比较。在本研究中,我们以LEMON标准为参考,评估了一些推荐的气道US参数在筛选困难气道方面的准确性。方法:这是一项横断面诊断准确性研究,研究对象为18岁以上因任何原因前来急诊科就诊且同意参与的患者,采用简单随机抽样方法。舌心距离(HMD)、皮肤到会厌距离(EP)、会厌周围空间到会厌与声带的比值(PEP/E)。VC)是在所有参与者中计算的美国指数。使用预先准备的检查表,记录测量的美国参数。对于每个参与者,还评估和记录了LEMON评分变量,并根据LEMON评分考虑为气道困难病例的截止点为2。参加者的人口统计特征亦已登记。结果:共纳入299例患者,平均年龄41.1岁(95%可信区间[CI]: 39.3-42.9)。根据LEMON评分≥2分,将20例(6.7%)患者分为气道困难组。PEP/E的比较。受试者基于LEMON评分的VC (P = 0.007)和EP距离(P = 0.049)差异有统计学意义;两组HMD均值比较无统计学意义(P = 0.144)。受试者的EP中位数为7.70 mm(四分位间距[IQR]: 6.70-9.40)。评估困难气道的最佳EP距离截断点为12.27 mm及以上,敏感性为35%,特异性为86.96%(准确性= 0.614;95% ci: 0.492-0.736)。PEP/E的中位数。VC为1.01(IQR: 0.79 ~ 1.23)。PEP/E的最佳截止点。评估气道困难的VC值为0.88或更低,敏感性为70%,特异性为67.38%(准确性= 0.701;95% ci: 0.583-0.818)。结论:根据我们的结果,PEP/E。超声测量的VC和EP距离可用于区分困难气道,以LEMON标准为参考。但是,PEP/E的使用还需要进一步的研究。VC和EP距离作为部分可靠指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
审稿时长
22 weeks
期刊介绍: The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine (Turk J Emerg Med) is an International, peer-reviewed, open-access journal that publishes clinical and experimental trials, case reports, invited reviews, case images, letters to the Editor, and interesting research conducted in all fields of Emergency Medicine. The Journal is the official scientific publication of the Emergency Medicine Association of Turkey (EMAT) and is printed four times a year, in January, April, July and October. The language of the journal is English. The Journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted. The authors are responsible for the scientific content of the material to be published. The Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine reserves the right to request any research materials on which the paper is based. The Editorial Board of the Turkish Journal of Emergency Medicine and the Publisher adheres to the principles of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors, the World Association of Medical Editors, the Council of Science Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the US National Library of Medicine, the US Office of Research Integrity, the European Association of Science Editors, and the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors.
期刊最新文献
Staphylococcus schleiferi subspecies coagulans septic shock in an immunocompetent male following canine otitis externa. Capnography as a tool for triaging and diagnosis of diabetic ketoacidosis in the emergency department: A prospective observational study. Circulatory shock in adults in emergency department. Comparing the clinical effects of balanced electrolyte solutions versus normal saline in managing diabetic ketoacidosis: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Acute respiratory failure induced by belly dancer's syndrome: A glance to a rare case report.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1