Suppr超能文献

一种新型改良伊文思蓝染料试验作为气管切开患者误吸筛查试验

A New Modified Evans Blue Dye Test as Screening Test for Aspiration in Tracheostomized Patients.

作者信息

Fiorelli Alfonso, Ferraro Fausto, Nagar Francesca, Fusco Pierluigi, Mazzone Salvatore, Costa Giuseppe, Di Natale Davide, Serra Nicola, Santini Mario

机构信息

Thoracic Surgery Unit, Naples, Italy.

Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Naples, Italy.

出版信息

J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2017 Apr;31(2):441-445. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2016.07.031. Epub 2016 Jul 26.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The authors assessed the diagnostic accuracy of a new modified Evans blue dye test (MEBDT) as a screening test for aspiration in tracheostomized patients.

DESIGN

Monocentric retrospective study performed between October 2013 and December 2015.

SETTING

Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, Second University of Naples.

PARTICIPANTS

Among 62 eligible patients, 5 were excluded. The authors' study population included 57 patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients underwent both fiberoptic endoscopic examination of the swallow (FEES) and MEBDT to evaluate swallow. The MEBDT results were compared with those of FEES and the diagnostic accuracy of MEBDT was calculated using the FEES as the gold standard.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The authors found that both FEES and MEBDT were positive for aspiration in 40 patients (true-positive MEBDT); FEES and MEBDT were negative in 10 (true-negative MEBDT). On the other hand, FEES was positive with an MEBDT negative in 7 patients (false-negative MEBDT), and there were no FEES negative and MEBDT positive (false-positive MEBDT). MEBDT had a sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predicted value of 85%, 100%, 100%, and 58.82%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

MEBDT could be a supplementary diagnostic test for aspiration. Patients with positive MEBDT should not undergo oral feeding, while patients with negative MEBDT should undergo FEES before starting oral feeding.

摘要

目的

作者评估一种新型改良伊文思蓝染料试验(MEBDT)作为气管切开患者误吸筛查试验的诊断准确性。

设计

2013年10月至2015年12月进行的单中心回顾性研究。

地点

那不勒斯第二大学麻醉与重症监护病房。

参与者

62例符合条件的患者中,5例被排除。作者的研究人群包括57例患者。

干预措施

患者接受吞咽纤维内镜检查(FEES)和MEBDT以评估吞咽情况。将MEBDT结果与FEES结果进行比较,并以FEES作为金标准计算MEBDT的诊断准确性。

测量指标及主要结果

作者发现,40例患者的FEES和MEBDT误吸结果均为阳性(MEBDT真阳性);10例患者的FEES和MEBDT结果均为阴性(MEBDT真阴性)。另一方面,7例患者FEES为阳性而MEBDT为阴性(MEBDT假阴性),且不存在FEES为阴性而MEBDT为阳性的情况(MEBDT假阳性)。MEBDT的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值分别为85%、100%、100%和58.82%。

结论

MEBDT可作为误吸的补充诊断试验。MEBDT结果为阳性的患者不应经口进食,而MEBDT结果为阴性的患者在开始经口进食前应接受FEES检查。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验