Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2015 Jun-Jul;62(6):305-12.
doi: 10.1016/j.redar.2014.06.005. Epub 2014 Aug 20.

Comparison between transthoracic lung ultrasound and a clinical method in confirming the position of double-lumen tube in thoracic anaesthesia. A pilot study

[Article in English, Spanish]
Affiliations
Observational Study

Comparison between transthoracic lung ultrasound and a clinical method in confirming the position of double-lumen tube in thoracic anaesthesia. A pilot study

[Article in English, Spanish]
N Álvarez-Díaz et al. Rev Esp Anestesiol Reanim. 2015 Jun-Jul.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the ability of lung ultrasound and a clinical method in the confirmation of a selective bronchial intubation by left double-lumen tube in elective thoracic surgery.

Material and methods: A prospective and blind, observational study was conducted in the setting of a university hospital operating room assigned for thoracic surgery. A single group of 105 consecutive patients from a total of 130, were included. After blind intubation, the position of the tube was confirmed by clinical and ultrasound assessment. Finally, the fiberoptic bronchoscopy confirmation as a reference standard was used to confirm the position of the tube. Under manual ventilation, by sequentially clamping the tracheal and bronchial limbs of the tube, clinical confirmation was made by auscultation, capnography, visualizing the chest wall expansion, and perceiving the lung compliance in the reservoir bag. Ultrasound confirmation was obtained by visualizing lung sliding, diaphragmatic movements, and the appearance of lung pulse sign.

Results: The sensitivity of the clinical method was 84.5%, with a specificity of 41.1%. The positive and negative likelihood ratio was 1.44 and 0.38, respectively. The sensitivity of the ultrasound method was 98.6%, specificity was 52.9%, with a positive likelihood ratio of 2.10 and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.03. Comparisons between the diagnostic performance of the 2 methods were calculated with McNemar's test. There was a significant difference in sensitivity between the ultrasound method and the clinical method (P=.002). Nevertheless, there was no statistically significant difference in specificity between both methods (P=.34). A p value<.01 was considered statistically significant.

Conclusion: Lung ultrasound was superior to the clinical method in confirming the adequate position of the left double-lumen tube. On the other hand, in confirming the misplacement of the tube, differences between both methods could not be ensured.

Keywords: Anestesia torácica; Auscultación; Auscultation; Ecografía pulmonar; Intubación selectiva; Left double-lumen tube; Lung ultrasound; One-lung ventilation; Selective bronchial intubation; Thoracic anaesthesia; Tubo de doble luz izquierdo; Ventilación unipulmonar.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources