Comparison of Lung Ultrasound and Auscultation for confirmation of bilateral air entry after endotracheal intubation at two different tidal volumes in cardiac surgical patients - A Crossover Study

AANCHAL DIXIT,PRABHAT TEWARI,GAURANGA MAJUMDAR,SHASHANK TRIPATHI

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.jvca.2024.09.096

IF: 2.894

2024-10-27

Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

Abstract:Objective The study aims to compare the efficacy and speed of lung ultrasonography (LUSG) with chest auscultation (CA) for confirming bilateral air entry after endotracheal intubation with a single lumen endotracheal tube, particularly at two different tidal volumes (TV), conventional and low TV, in adult cardiac surgical patients. Design and method This double-blind, prospective, randomized crossover study included 100 adult patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery under general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation in a tertiary care teaching hospital. Patients were divided into two groups and assessed in supine position with both CA and LUSG at baseline during spontaneous breathing at resting TV and post-intubation at both TV, 7 ml/kg or 10 ml/kg of predicted body weight. In group 1, 7 ml/kg TV was first used, followed by 10 ml/kg, while in group 2, the sequence was reversed. The study was conducted by three anesthesiologists and a technician, with defined roles and blinded to each other. Statistical analysis included descriptive and inferential methods. Results and conclusions The distribution of age, body mass index, and predicted body weight was similar in both groups. There were more females in Group 1. The study found that CA was generally more rapid than LUSG in detecting air entry, particularly in mechanically ventilated patients at both TVs. Time taken for CA at 7 ml/kg TV was significantly more than at 10 ml/kg in group 2, however, still being less than LUSG. CA showed lesser efficacy in detecting air entry compared to baseline spontaneous breathing scores at 7 ml/kg TV in both groups. LUSG showed comparable efficacy with CA in group 1 while significantly less efficacy than CA in group 2 in detecting air entry at both TVs. LUSG detected significantly better air entry at four check points at 10 ml/kg TV compared to baseline values at spontaneous breathing in both groups. There was no significant correlation between the time taken and the scores achieved for both techniques, suggesting that increased observation time did not necessarily lead to improved scores. The distribution of scores was different on the left and right sides, with gender distribution influencing the results.In conclusion, lung ultrasonography (LUSG) emerges as a valuable tool for detecting air entry by pleural sliding in cardiac surgical patients, particularly in those ventilated with low tidal volume. While chest auscultation (CA) remains rapid and cost-effective, LUSG provides an alternative method, albeit more time-consuming. In mechanically ventilated patients, auscultation at 10 ml/kg TV was faster and more efficacious than lung ultrasonography in detecting air entry in four-point auscultation. At 7 ml/kg TV, both techniques were equally efficacious, but LUSG was more time-consuming. The findings underscore the importance of considering patient factors, tidal volume settings, availability of time, and necessary equipment when choosing between CA and LUSG for air entry confirmation post-endotracheal intubation in cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to explore the implications of gender differences and differential air entry on the left and right sides, as noted in this study.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems,peripheral vascular disease,respiratory system,anesthesiology