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
. 2022 Feb 21:9:851395.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.851395. eCollection 2022.

Use of Electronic Auscultation in Full Personal Protective Equipment to Detect Ventilation Status in Selective Lung Ventilation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations

Use of Electronic Auscultation in Full Personal Protective Equipment to Detect Ventilation Status in Selective Lung Ventilation: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Tzu-Jung Wei et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Chest auscultation is the first procedure performed to detect endotracheal tube malpositioning but conventional stethoscopes do not conform to the personal protective equipment (PPE) protocol during the COVID-19 pandemic. This double-blinded randomized controlled trial evaluated the feasibility of using ear-contactless electronic stethoscope to identify endobronchial blocker established selective lung ventilation, simulating endobronchial intubation during thoracic surgery with full PPE. Conventional and electronic auscultation was performed without and with full PPE, respectively, of 50 patients with selective lung ventilation. The rates of correct ventilation status detection were 86 and 88% in the conventional and electronic auscultation groups (p = 1.00). Electronic auscultation revealed a positive predictive value of 87% (95% CI 77 to 93%), and a negative predictive value of 91% (95% CI 58 to 99%), comparable to the results for conventional auscultation. For detection of the true unilateral lung ventilation, the F1 score and the phi were 0.904 and 0.654, respectively for conventional auscultation; were 0.919 and 0.706, respectively for electronic auscultation. Furthermore, the user experience questionnaire revealed that the majority of participant anesthesiologists (90.5%) rated the audio quality of electronic lung sounds as comparable or superior to that of conventional acoustic lung sounds. In conclusion, electronic auscultation assessments of ventilation status as examined during thoracic surgery in full PPE were comparable in accuracy to corresponding conventional auscultation assessments made without PPE. Users reported satisfactory experience with the electronic stethoscope.

Keywords: COVID- 19; auscultation; electronic stethoscop; lung ventilation; personal protective equipment (PPE).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Endobronchial blocker (EB) position and ventilation statuses. (A) The right EB cuff was inflated; this simulates left endobronchial intubation. (B) The left EB cuff was inflated; this simulates right endobronchial intubation. (C) The EB cuff was not inflated; this simulates normal tracheal intubation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient enrolment.
Figure 3
Figure 3
DS101 Electronic Stethoscope. (A). DS101 electronic stethoscope with earpiece microphone. (B). DS101 electronic stethoscope with Bluetooth transmitter for transmission of lung sound to external speaker. (C). DS101 electronic stethoscope connected to external speaker by audio cable.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Illustrations of participant anesthesiologist setting. (A). Illustration of full level C PPE (complying with the requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration) in the electronic stethoscope group. (B). Regular surgical scrubs and cap, not covering the face or ears in the conventional stethoscope group.

Similar articles

References

    1. Ruskin KJ, Ruskin AC, Musselman BT, Harvey JR, Nesthus TE, O'Connor M. COVID-19, Personal protective equipment, and human performance. Anesthesiol. (2021) 134:518–25. 10.1097/ALN.0000000000003684 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stewart CL, Thornblade LW, Diamond DJ, Fong Y, Melstrom LG. Personal protective equipment and COVID-19: a review for surgeons. Ann Surg. (2020) 272:e132–e8. 10.1097/SLA.0000000000003991 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ortega R, Gonzalez M, Nozari A, Canelli R. Personal protective equipment and Covid-19. N Engl J Med. (2020) 382:e105. 10.1056/NEJMvcm2014809 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Wang ML, Wang YP, Hung MH, Hsu HH, Chen JS, Yang FS, et al. . Is fibre-optic bronchoscopy necessary to confirm the position of rigid-angled endobronchial blockers before thoracic surgery? A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. (2018) 53:241–6. 10.1093/ejcts/ezx260 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ramsingh D, Frank E, Haughton R, Schilling J, Gimenez KM, Banh E, et al. . Auscultation vs. point-of-care ultrasound to determine endotracheal vs. bronchial intubation: a diagnostic accuracy study. Anesthesiology. (2016) 124:1012–20. 10.1097/ALN.0000000000001073 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources