Normal Saline Versus Hypertonic Saline for Airway STENT Maintenance: SALTY STENT Study.

IF 3.3 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology Pub Date : 2024-09-12 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1097/LBR.0000000000000986
Bertin D Salguero, Greta Joy, Christian M Lo Cascio, Abhinav Agrawal, Udit Chaddha
{"title":"Normal Saline Versus Hypertonic Saline for Airway STENT Maintenance: SALTY STENT Study.","authors":"Bertin D Salguero, Greta Joy, Christian M Lo Cascio, Abhinav Agrawal, Udit Chaddha","doi":"10.1097/LBR.0000000000000986","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Mucus plugging is a common complication of airway stenting. There is no data or guidance on the best airway hygiene regimen and consequently wide practice variation exists.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, nonblinded, randomized, pilot study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nebulized 3% saline (3%S) versus normal saline (NS) in reducing the incidence of mucus plugging in adult patients that undergo central airway stent placement. Patients were enrolled immediately after stent placement and randomized to nebulized 3%S or NS (3 mL) 3 times a day. Patients were scheduled for surveillance bronchoscopy in 4 to 6 weeks. Unscheduled bronchoscopies due to symptomatic mucus plugging were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From December 2022 to March 2024, 37 patients were screened, and 35 were enrolled. Four in the 3%S and 8 in the NS group did not undergo a surveillance bronchoscopy and were excluded from the final analysis. During surveillance bronchoscopy for the 3%S (n=13) and NS (n=10) groups, obstructive mucus plugging was noted in 7.7% versus 40%, granulation requiring intervention in 7.7% versus 10%, and >25% circumferential biofilm in 0% versus 30%, respectively. In the 3%S versus NS groups, 0% versus 20% of patients required an unscheduled bronchoscopy due to mucus plugging. There were no side effects reported with the daily use of 3%S or NS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Nebulized 3%S is safe and may be equally or more effective than NS in preventing obstructive mucus plugging in patients who undergo airway stenting. A larger blinded randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm this finding.</p>","PeriodicalId":15268,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bronchology & Interventional Pulmonology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/LBR.0000000000000986","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Mucus plugging is a common complication of airway stenting. There is no data or guidance on the best airway hygiene regimen and consequently wide practice variation exists.

Methods: This single-center, nonblinded, randomized, pilot study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of nebulized 3% saline (3%S) versus normal saline (NS) in reducing the incidence of mucus plugging in adult patients that undergo central airway stent placement. Patients were enrolled immediately after stent placement and randomized to nebulized 3%S or NS (3 mL) 3 times a day. Patients were scheduled for surveillance bronchoscopy in 4 to 6 weeks. Unscheduled bronchoscopies due to symptomatic mucus plugging were recorded.

Results: From December 2022 to March 2024, 37 patients were screened, and 35 were enrolled. Four in the 3%S and 8 in the NS group did not undergo a surveillance bronchoscopy and were excluded from the final analysis. During surveillance bronchoscopy for the 3%S (n=13) and NS (n=10) groups, obstructive mucus plugging was noted in 7.7% versus 40%, granulation requiring intervention in 7.7% versus 10%, and >25% circumferential biofilm in 0% versus 30%, respectively. In the 3%S versus NS groups, 0% versus 20% of patients required an unscheduled bronchoscopy due to mucus plugging. There were no side effects reported with the daily use of 3%S or NS.

Conclusion: Nebulized 3%S is safe and may be equally or more effective than NS in preventing obstructive mucus plugging in patients who undergo airway stenting. A larger blinded randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm this finding.

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
用于气道 STENT 维护的正常生理盐水与高渗盐水:SALTY STENT 研究。
背景:粘液堵塞是气道支架植入术的常见并发症。目前还没有关于最佳气道卫生方案的数据或指导,因此在实践中存在很大差异:这项单中心、非盲法、随机试验研究旨在评估雾化 3% 生理盐水(3%S)与生理盐水(NS)在降低接受中央气道支架置入术的成年患者粘液堵塞发生率方面的有效性和安全性。患者在支架置入后立即入组,随机接受雾化 3%S 或 NS(3 mL),每天 3 次。患者将在 4-6 周后接受支气管镜检查。记录因无症状粘液堵塞而未安排的支气管镜检查:结果:从 2022 年 12 月到 2024 年 3 月,37 名患者接受了筛查,其中 35 人入组。3%S组和NS组分别有4人和8人未接受监测支气管镜检查,因此未纳入最终分析。在 3%S 组(n=13)和 NS 组(n=10)的监测支气管镜检查中,发现阻塞性粘液堵塞的比例分别为 7.7% 和 40%,需要干预的肉芽肿比例分别为 7.7% 和 10%,周缘生物膜 >25% 的比例分别为 0% 和 30%。在 3%S 组和 NS 组中,分别有 0% 和 20% 的患者因粘液堵塞而需要进行计划外支气管镜检查。每日使用 3%S 或 NS 均无副作用:雾化 3%S 是安全的,在预防气道支架植入术患者的阻塞性粘液堵塞方面可能比 NS 更有效。有必要进行更大规模的盲法随机对照试验来证实这一结论。
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
4.40
自引率
6.10%
发文量
121
期刊最新文献
Ibrutinib and Bleeding Hazards During Bronchoscopy. Rapid Pleurodesis in Patients With Chronic Noninfectious Pleural Effusion: Twenty Years of Real-world Performance Data. Safety and Efficacy of Rigid Bronchoscopy-guided Percutaneous Dilational Tracheostomy: A Single-center Experience. Diagnostic Value and Safety of Addition of Transbronchial Needle Aspiration to Transbronchial Biopsy Through Endobronchial Ultrasonography Using a Guide Sheath Under Virtual Bronchoscopic Navigation for the Diagnosis of Peripheral Pulmonary Lesions. Percutaneous Airway Silicone Stent External Fixation Outcomes and Techniques: Case Series With Literature Review.
×
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