Selection of the access channel in bronchoscopic intervention

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine Pub Date : 2022-06-03 DOI:10.1080/17476348.2022.2089656
Hui Chen, Yang Yao, Sheng-yu Wang, Song Liu, Lin Yang
{"title":"Selection of the access channel in bronchoscopic intervention","authors":"Hui Chen, Yang Yao, Sheng-yu Wang, Song Liu, Lin Yang","doi":"10.1080/17476348.2022.2089656","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Background At present, bronchoscopic intervention has become an important treatment approach for central airway obstruction (CAO). Choosing an appropriate access channel for different patients during this operation has become a research focus. Methods Data of bronchoscopic interventions in 201 patients with CAO in which one of endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask, or rigid bronchoscope were used as the only access channel were retrospectively reviewed. Results The total immediate effective rate was 94.1% (398/423), and the main complications related to the access channels included hypoxemia, elevated arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide, arrhythmia, airway mucosa tear, glottic edema, vocal cord injury, tooth loss, massive bleeding, airway mucosal necrosis, and asphyxia. The incidence of complications was 16.8% (71/423). Glottic edema was the most common complication with an incidence of 7.8% (33/423) and accounted for 46.5% of all complications. Glottic edema only occurred in the laryngeal mask and rigid bronchoscope groups, and the incidence was significantly correlated with the operation time (p < 0.001). Massive bleeding related to the access channel remains the most serious complication. Conclusions Endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask, and rigid bronchoscope each have their own advantages and disadvantages. The most appropriate access channel should depend on a comprehensive assessment of the patient.","PeriodicalId":12103,"journal":{"name":"Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine","volume":"16 1","pages":"707 - 712"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Expert Review of Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17476348.2022.2089656","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background At present, bronchoscopic intervention has become an important treatment approach for central airway obstruction (CAO). Choosing an appropriate access channel for different patients during this operation has become a research focus. Methods Data of bronchoscopic interventions in 201 patients with CAO in which one of endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask, or rigid bronchoscope were used as the only access channel were retrospectively reviewed. Results The total immediate effective rate was 94.1% (398/423), and the main complications related to the access channels included hypoxemia, elevated arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide, arrhythmia, airway mucosa tear, glottic edema, vocal cord injury, tooth loss, massive bleeding, airway mucosal necrosis, and asphyxia. The incidence of complications was 16.8% (71/423). Glottic edema was the most common complication with an incidence of 7.8% (33/423) and accounted for 46.5% of all complications. Glottic edema only occurred in the laryngeal mask and rigid bronchoscope groups, and the incidence was significantly correlated with the operation time (p < 0.001). Massive bleeding related to the access channel remains the most serious complication. Conclusions Endotracheal intubation, laryngeal mask, and rigid bronchoscope each have their own advantages and disadvantages. The most appropriate access channel should depend on a comprehensive assessment of the patient.
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
支气管镜介入治疗通道的选择
背景目前,支气管镜介入治疗已成为中央气道阻塞(CAO)的重要治疗手段。在该手术中,为不同患者选择合适的接入通道已成为研究热点。方法回顾性分析201例以气管插管、喉罩、刚性支气管镜为唯一通道的支气管镜介入治疗的资料。结果总即刻有效率为94.1%(398/423),与通道相关的主要并发症为低氧血症、动脉二氧化碳分压升高、心律失常、气道黏膜撕裂、声门水肿、声带损伤、牙齿脱落、大出血、气道黏膜坏死、窒息。并发症发生率为16.8%(71/423)。声门水肿是最常见的并发症,发生率为7.8%(33/423),占所有并发症的46.5%。声门水肿仅发生在喉罩组和刚性支气管镜组,且发生率与手术时间显著相关(p < 0.001)。与通道相关的大出血仍然是最严重的并发症。结论气管插管、喉罩、刚性支气管镜各有优缺点。最合适的访问渠道应取决于对患者的全面评估。
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
6.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Coverage will include the following key areas: - Prospects for new and emerging therapeutics - Epidemiology of disease - Preventive strategies - All aspects of COPD, from patient self-management to systemic effects of the disease and comorbidities - Improved diagnostic methods, including imaging techniques, biomarkers and physiological tests. - Advances in the treatment of respiratory infections and drug resistance issues - Occupational and environmental factors - Progress in smoking intervention and cessation methods - Disease and treatment issues for defined populations, such as children and the elderly - Respiratory intensive and critical care - Updates on the status and advances of specific disease areas, including asthma, HIV/AIDS-related disease, cystic fibrosis, COPD and sleep-disordered breathing morbidity
期刊最新文献
Non-invasive respiratory support in elderly hospitalized patients. Overcoming challenges of managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in low- and middle-income countries Understanding the impact of breathing pattern disorders in difficult-to-treat asthma Omics research in lymphangioleiomyomatosis: status and challenges. A clinician's guide to effects of obesity on childhood asthma and into adulthood.
×
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