Aviv Jonathan E, Di Tullio Marco R, Homma Shunichi, Storper Ian S, Zschommler Anne, Ma Guoguang, Petkova Eva, Murphy Mark, Desloge Rosemary, Shaw Gary, Benjamin Stanley, Corwin Steven
Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York-Presbyterian Hospital, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York 10032, USA.
Laryngoscope. 2004 May;114(5):821-6. doi: 10.1097/00005537-200405000-00006.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: The traditional blind passage of a transesophageal echocardiography probe transorally through the hypopharynx is considered safe. Yet, severe hypopharyngeal complications during transesophageal echocardiography at several institutions led the authors to investigate whether traditional probe passage results in a greater incidence of hypopharyngeal injuries when compared with probe passage under direct visualization.
Randomized, prospective clinical study.
In 159 consciously sedated adults referred for transesophageal echocardiography, the authors performed transesophageal echocardiography with concomitant transnasal videoendoscopic monitoring of the hypopharynx. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive traditional (blind) or experimental (optical) transesophageal echocardiography. The primary outcome measure was frequency of hypopharyngeal injuries (hypopharyngeal lacerations or hematomas), and the secondary outcome measure was number of hypopharyngeal contacts.
No perforation occurred with either technique. However, hypopharyngeal lacerations or hematomas occurred in 19 of 80 (23.8%) patients with the traditional technique (11 superficial lacerations of pyriform sinus, 1 laceration of pharynx, 12 arytenoid hematomas, 2 vocal fold hematomas, and 1 pyriform hematoma) and in 1 of 79 patients (1.3%) with the optical technique (superficial pyriform laceration) (P =.001). All traumatized patients underwent flexible laryngoscopy, but none required additional intervention. Respectively, hypopharyngeal contacts were more frequent with the traditional than with the optical technique at the pyriform sinus (70.0% vs. 10.1% [P =.001]), arytenoid (55.0% vs. 3.8% [P =.001]), and vocal fold (15.0% vs. 3.86% [P =.016]).
Optically guided trans-esophageal echocardiography results in significantly fewer hypopharyngeal injuries and fewer contacts than traditional, blind transesophageal echocardiography. The optically guided technique may result in decreased frequency of potentially significant complications and therefore in improved patient safety.
目的/假设:经食管超声心动图探头经口盲目通过下咽被认为是安全的。然而,多家机构在经食管超声心动图检查期间出现的严重下咽并发症促使作者研究与直视下探头通过相比,传统探头通过是否会导致更高的下咽损伤发生率。
随机、前瞻性临床研究。
在159名因经食管超声心动图检查而接受清醒镇静的成年人中,作者在经鼻视频内镜监测下咽的同时进行经食管超声心动图检查。受试者被随机分配接受传统(盲目)或实验性(光学)经食管超声心动图检查。主要结局指标是下咽损伤(下咽撕裂或血肿)的发生率,次要结局指标是下咽接触次数。
两种技术均未发生穿孔。然而,传统技术组80例患者中有19例(23.8%)发生下咽撕裂或血肿(梨状窦浅表撕裂11例、咽部撕裂1例、杓状软骨血肿12例、声带血肿2例、梨状血肿1例),光学技术组79例患者中有1例(1.3%)发生(梨状浅表撕裂)(P = 0.001)。所有受创伤患者均接受了纤维喉镜检查,但均无需额外干预。在梨状窦(70.0%对10.1% [P = 0.001])、杓状软骨(55.0%对3.8% [P = 0.001])和声带上,传统技术的下咽接触比光学技术更频繁(15.0%对3.86% [P = 0.016])。
与传统的盲目经食管超声心动图相比,光学引导下的经食管超声心动图导致的下咽损伤和接触明显更少。光学引导技术可能会降低潜在重大并发症的发生率,从而提高患者安全性。