Search

BackgroundAppropriate 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionsIn 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.Trial registrationThis study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03314519 , Principal investigator: Kasana Raksamani, Date of registration: 19/10/2017.

Background: Surgery on the abdominal aorta to treat aneurysms or occlusive disease is a major undertaking which requires intensive physiological support and fluid management. Blood products are often used but the main fluid replacement is with crystalloids or colloids. For years there has been controversy over which fluid is optimal and a number of studies have examined the subject. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2000 and previously updated in 2002., Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of different non-blood replacement fluids used in abdominal aorta procedures with a view to identifying the optimal fluid for use., Search Strategy: The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group searched their Specialised Register (August 2009) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 3) for publications describing randomised controlled trials of non-blood replacement fluids in abdominal aortic surgery. In addition, the reference lists from retrieved trials were screened for further information about trials., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of at least one specific non-blood fluid used for replacement therapy in operations on, and confined to, the abdominal aorta., Data Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted and then entered into the Review Manager software where statistical analyses were performed., Main Results: Thirty-eight trials involving 1589 patients were included. Patients undergoing aortic surgery had various physiological parameters measured before and after their operation (these were cardiac, respiratory, haematological, and biochemical). Patients were randomised to a fluid type. This review demonstrated that no single fluid affects any outcome measure significantly more than another fluid across a range of outcomes. The death rate in these studies was 2.45% (39 patients)., Authors' Conclusions: Despite the confirmed beneficial effects of colloids in this review, further studies are still required. There are no studies examining the effects of combination fluid therapy. The primary research outcome was death, for which results were limited; therefore, future studies should pay more attention to short-term outcomes such as minimising the need for allogenic blood transfusion, complications (organ failure), and length of stay in both the intensive care unit and hospital.