Suppr超能文献

在麻醉患者中使用传统方法与气泡技术确认鼻胃管插入:一项前瞻性随机研究。

Nasogastric tube insertion using conventional versus bubble technique for its confirmation in anesthetized patients: a prospective randomized study.

作者信息

Sharma Ankur, Vyas Varuna, Goyal Shilpa, Bhatia Pradeep, Sethi Priyanka, Goel Akhil Dhanesh

机构信息

All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Department of Trauma & Emergency (Anaesthesiology), Jodhpur, India.

All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Department of Pediatrics, Jodhpur, India.

出版信息

Braz J Anesthesiol. 2023 Sep-Oct;73(5):620-625. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2021.01.011. Epub 2021 Mar 22.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Nasogastric tube insertion and confirmation of its position can be difficult in the anesthetized patient. The purpose of the present study was to compare the bubble technique with the conventional method for confirmation of nasogastric tube placement in these patients.

METHODS

Two hundred sixty adult patients, aged between 20...70 years, posted for surgeries requiring general anesthesia, tracheal intubation, and a nasogastric tube were enrolled in this study. Patients were randomized into 2 groups: Group B (Bubble group) and Group C (Control group). In Group C, a conventional technique using a lubricated nasogastric tube was positioned through the nostril with head remained neutral. In Group B, 2% lidocaine jelly was added to the proximal end to form a single bubble. The correct placement of the nasogastric tube in the stomach was confirmed by fluoroscopy by an independent observer intraoperatively.

RESULTS

The duration of nasogastric tube insertion was 57.2..13.3seconds in Group B and 59.8..11.9seconds in Group C (p=0.111). The confirmation rate of the bubble technique was 76.8% (95% CI: 68.7...83.3), which was significantly better than the conventional method where the confirmation rate was 59.7% (95% CI 50.9...67.9), p<0.001. When compared to fluoroscopy, bubble technique was found to have a sensitivity of 92.3% (95% CI: 85.6...96.1) with specificity of 81.0% (95% CI: 60.0...92.3), positive predictive value of 96.0% (95% CI: 90.2...98.4), and a moderate negative predictive value of 68.0% (95% CI: 48.4...82.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The bubble technique of nasogastric tube insertion has a higher confirmation rate in comparison to the conventional technique.

TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER

Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2018/09/015864).

摘要

背景

在麻醉患者中,鼻胃管插入及其位置的确认可能具有挑战性。本研究的目的是比较气泡技术与传统方法在这些患者中确认鼻胃管位置的效果。

方法

本研究纳入了260例年龄在20至70岁之间、拟行全身麻醉、气管插管和鼻胃管置入手术的成年患者。患者被随机分为两组:B组(气泡组)和C组(对照组)。在C组中,采用传统技术,将润滑后的鼻胃管经鼻孔插入,头部保持中立位。在B组中,在鼻胃管近端添加2%利多卡因凝胶形成单个气泡。术中由独立观察者通过荧光透视确认鼻胃管在胃内的正确位置。

结果

B组鼻胃管插入时间为57.2±13.3秒,C组为59.8±11.9秒(p = 0.111)。气泡技术的确认率为76.8%(95%CI:68.7至83.3),显著优于传统方法,传统方法的确认率为59.7%(95%CI:50.9至67.9),p<0.001。与荧光透视相比,气泡技术的灵敏度为92.3%(95%CI:85.6至96.1),特异度为81.0%(95%CI:60.0至92.3),阳性预测值为96.0%(95%CI:90.2至98.4),中度阴性预测值为68.0%(95%CI:48.4至82.8)。

结论

与传统技术相比,鼻胃管插入的气泡技术具有更高的确认率。

试验注册号

印度临床试验注册中心(CTRI/2018/09/015864)。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/87aa/10544108/a2ddd9da2de9/gr1.jpg

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