Lung ultrasound is non-inferior to bronchoscopy for confirmation of double-lumen endotracheal tube positioning: a randomized controlled noninferiority study

被引:12
作者
Kanavitoon, Sawita [1 ]
Raksamani, Kasana [1 ]
Troy, Michael P. [2 ]
Suphathamwit, Aphichat [1 ]
Thongcharoen, Punnarerk [3 ]
Suksompong, Sirilak [1 ]
Oh, Scott S. [2 ]
机构
[1] Mahidol Univ, Siriraj Hosp, Fac Med, Dept Anesthesiol, 2 Wanglang Rd, Bangkok 10700, Thailand
[2] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Med, Div Pulm Crit Care & Sleep Med, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[3] Mahidol Univ, Siriraj Hosp, Fac Med, Div Cardiothorac Surg,Dept Surg, Bangkok, Thailand
关键词
Lung ultrasonography; Double lumen tube position; Lung isolation; One-lung ventilation; Fiberoptic bronchoscopy; Double lumen endotracheal tube; ENDOBRONCHIAL TUBES; PLACEMENT; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; ACCURACY; IMPROVE;
D O I
10.1186/s12871-022-01707-4
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
Background: Appropriate placement of left-sided double-lumen endotracheal tubes (LDLTs) is paramount for optimal visualization of the operative field during thoracic surgeries that require single lung ventilation. Appropriate placement of LDLTs is therefore confirmed with fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FOB) rather than clinical assessment alone. Recent studies have demonstrated lung ultrasound (US) is superior to clinical assessment alone for confirming placement of LDLT, but no large trials have compared US to the gold standard of FOB. This noninferiority trial was devised to compare lung US with FOB for LDLT positioning and achievement of lung collapse for operative exposure. Methods: This randomized, controlled, double-blind, noninferiority trial was conducted at the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand from October 2017 to July 2019. The study enrolled 200 ASA classification 1-3 patients that were scheduled for elective thoracic surgery requiring placement of LDLT. Study patients were randomized into either the FOB group or the lung US group after initial blind placement of LDLT. Five patients were excluded due to protocol deviation. In the FOB group (n = 98), fiberoptic bronchoscopy was used to confirm lung collapse due to proper positioning of the LDLT, and to adjust the tube if necessary. In the US group (n = 97), lung ultrasonography of four pre-specified zones (upper and lower posterior and mid-axillary) was used to assess lung collapse and guide adjustment of the tube if necessary. The primary outcome was presence of adequate lung collapse as determined by visual grading by the attending surgeon on scale from 1 to 4. Secondary outcomes included the time needed to adjust and confirm lung collapse, the time from finishing LDLT positioning to the grading of lung collapse, and intraoperative parameters such has hypotension or hypertension, hypoxia, and hypercarbia. The patient, attending anesthesiologist, and attending thoracic surgeon were all blinded to the intervention arm. Results: The primary outcome of lung collapse by visual grading was similar between the intervention and the control groups, with 89 patients (91.8%) in the US group compared to 83 patients (84.1%) in the FOB group (p = 0.18) experiencing adequate collapse. This met criteria for noninferiority per protocol analysis. The median time needed to confirm and adjust LDLT position in the US group was 3 min (IQR 2-5), which was significantly shorter than the median time needed to perform the task in the FOB group (6 min, IQR 4-10) (p = 0.002). Conclusions: In selected patients undergoing thoracic surgery requiring LDLT, lung ultrasonography was noninferior to fiberoptic bronchoscopy in achieving adequate lung collapse and reaches the desired outcome in less time.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 31 条
  • [1] Accuracy of Transthoracic Lung Ultrasound for Diagnosing Anesthesia-induced Atelectasis in Children
    Acosta, Cecilia M.
    Maidana, Gustavo A.
    Jacovitti, Daniel
    Belaunzaran, Agustin
    Cereceda, Silvana
    Rae, Elizabeth
    Molina, Ananda
    Gonorazky, Sergio
    Bohm, Stephan H.
    Tusman, Gerardo
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 2014, 120 (06) : 1370 - 1379
  • [2] Alvarez-Díaz N, 2015, REV ESP ANEST REANIM, V62, P305, DOI [10.1016/j.redar.2014.06.005, 10.1016/j.redare.2014.06.001]
  • [3] Positioning of a double-lumen endobronchial tube without the aid of any instruments: An implication for emergency management
    Bahk, JH
    Lim, YJ
    Kim, CS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF TRAUMA-INJURY INFECTION AND CRITICAL CARE, 2000, 49 (05): : 899 - 902
  • [4] MARGIN OF SAFETY IN POSITIONING MODERN DOUBLE-LUMEN ENDOTRACHEAL-TUBES
    BENUMOF, JL
    PARTRIDGE, BL
    SALVATIERRA, C
    KEATING, J
    [J]. ANESTHESIOLOGY, 1987, 67 (05) : 729 - 738
  • [5] The Year in Thoracic Anesthesia: Selected Highlights From 2018
    Boisen, Michael L.
    Rolleri, Noah
    Gorgy, Amany
    Kolarczyk, Lavinia
    Rao, Vidya K.
    Gelzinis, Theresa A.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CARDIOTHORACIC AND VASCULAR ANESTHESIA, 2019, 33 (11) : 2909 - 2919
  • [6] A comparison of techniques for placement of double-lumen endobronchial tubes
    Boucek, CD
    Landreneau, R
    Freeman, JA
    Strollo, D
    Bircher, NG
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA, 1998, 10 (07) : 557 - 560
  • [7] Brodsky J B, 2009, Br J Anaesth, V103 Suppl 1, pi66, DOI 10.1093/bja/aep262
  • [8] Brodsky Jay B, 2004, Curr Opin Anaesthesiol, V17, P7, DOI 10.1097/00001503-200402000-00003
  • [9] Bussières JS, 2016, CAN J ANESTH, V63, P818, DOI 10.1007/s12630-016-0657-3
  • [10] Campos J H, 2001, Anesthesiol Clin North Am, V19, P455, DOI 10.1016/S0889-8537(05)70243-1