Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound to Evaluate Lung Isolation During One-Lung Ventilation in Children: A Blinded Observational Feasibility Study.

Alok Moharir,Yoshikazu Yamaguchi,Jennifer H Aldrink,Andrea Martinez,Mauricio Arce-Villalobos,Sibelle Aurelie Yemele Kitio,Julie Rice-Weimer,Joseph D Tobias
{"title":"Point-of-Care Lung Ultrasound to Evaluate Lung Isolation During One-Lung Ventilation in Children: A Blinded Observational Feasibility Study.","authors":"Alok Moharir,Yoshikazu Yamaguchi,Jennifer H Aldrink,Andrea Martinez,Mauricio Arce-Villalobos,Sibelle Aurelie Yemele Kitio,Julie Rice-Weimer,Joseph D Tobias","doi":"10.1213/ane.0000000000007155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\nMinimally invasive thoracic surgical techniques require effective lung isolation using one-lung ventilation (OLV). Verification of lung isolation may be confirmed by auscultation, visual confirmation using fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB), or more recently, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The aim of this study was to prospectively compare lung ultrasound with clinical auscultation to confirm OLV before thoracic surgery in pediatric patients.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nThis prospectively blinded feasibility study included 40 patients ranging in age from 0 to 20 years. After confirmation of lung separation by the primary anesthesia team using FOB, the sonographer and the auscultator, both blinded to the laterality of surgery and lung separation, entered the operating room. The sonographer evaluated for pleural lung sliding and the auscultator listened for breath sounds. Successful lung separation was definitively confirmed by direct visualization of lung collapse during the operation.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nIn confirming effective single-lung ventilation, lung ultrasound had a diagnostic accuracy of 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.7%-98.5%). In contrast, auscultation could only reliably confirm lung isolation with 68% accuracy (95% CI, 51.5%-80.4%). The McNemar test showed a statistically significant difference between the use of lung ultrasound and auscultation (P < .001). The median time to perform ultrasonography was 67 seconds (interquartile range [IQR], 46-142) and the median time to perform auscultation was 21 seconds (IQR, 10-32).\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nBased on the initial results of our feasibility trial, lung ultrasound proved to be a fast and reliable method to verify single-lung ventilation in pediatric patients presenting for thoracic surgery with a high degree of diagnostic accuracy.","PeriodicalId":7799,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesia & Analgesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1213/ane.0000000000007155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Minimally invasive thoracic surgical techniques require effective lung isolation using one-lung ventilation (OLV). Verification of lung isolation may be confirmed by auscultation, visual confirmation using fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB), or more recently, point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS). The aim of this study was to prospectively compare lung ultrasound with clinical auscultation to confirm OLV before thoracic surgery in pediatric patients. METHODS This prospectively blinded feasibility study included 40 patients ranging in age from 0 to 20 years. After confirmation of lung separation by the primary anesthesia team using FOB, the sonographer and the auscultator, both blinded to the laterality of surgery and lung separation, entered the operating room. The sonographer evaluated for pleural lung sliding and the auscultator listened for breath sounds. Successful lung separation was definitively confirmed by direct visualization of lung collapse during the operation. RESULTS In confirming effective single-lung ventilation, lung ultrasound had a diagnostic accuracy of 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.7%-98.5%). In contrast, auscultation could only reliably confirm lung isolation with 68% accuracy (95% CI, 51.5%-80.4%). The McNemar test showed a statistically significant difference between the use of lung ultrasound and auscultation (P < .001). The median time to perform ultrasonography was 67 seconds (interquartile range [IQR], 46-142) and the median time to perform auscultation was 21 seconds (IQR, 10-32). CONCLUSIONS Based on the initial results of our feasibility trial, lung ultrasound proved to be a fast and reliable method to verify single-lung ventilation in pediatric patients presenting for thoracic surgery with a high degree of diagnostic accuracy.
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
护理点肺部超声评估儿童单肺通气期间的肺隔离情况:盲法观察可行性研究。
背景微创胸外科技术要求使用单肺通气(OLV)进行有效的肺隔离。肺隔离的确认可通过听诊、纤维支气管镜(FOB)视觉确认或最新的床旁超声(POCUS)进行。本研究旨在前瞻性地比较肺部超声与临床听诊,以便在儿科患者进行胸腔手术前确认 OLV。在主麻醉团队使用 FOB 确认肺分离后,超声波技师和听诊器医师进入手术室,他们对手术侧位和肺分离情况都是盲法。超声技师评估胸膜肺滑动,听诊器听呼吸音。结果 在确认有效的单肺通气时,肺部超声的诊断准确率为 95%(95% 置信区间 [CI],82.7%-98.5%)。相比之下,听诊确认肺隔离的准确率仅为 68%(95% 置信区间 [CI],51.5%-80.4%)。McNemar 检验显示,使用肺部超声波和听诊之间存在显著的统计学差异(P < .001)。结论根据我们的可行性试验的初步结果,肺部超声被证明是一种快速可靠的方法,可用于验证前来接受胸外科手术的儿科患者的单肺通气,且诊断准确率较高。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Novel Cancer Therapeutics: Perioperative Implications and Challenges. Xenon and Argon as Neuroprotective Treatments for Perinatal Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury: A Preclinical Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Defining Postinduction Hemodynamic Instability With an Automated Classification Model. A Comparison of Remimazolam versus Propofol on Blood Pressure Changes During Therapeutic Endoscopic Retrograde Cholangiopancreatography: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Variations in Current Practice and Protocols of Intraoperative Multimodal Analgesia: A Cross-Sectional Study Within a Six-Hospital US Health Care System.
×
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