Lung ultrasound assessment of atelectasis following different anesthesia induction techniques in pediatric patients: a propensity score-matched, observational study.

Anna Camporesi, Giulia Roveri, Luigi Vetrugno, Danilo Buonsenso, Valentina De Giorgis, Sara Costanzo, Ugo Maria Pierucci, Gloria Pelizzo
{"title":"Lung ultrasound assessment of atelectasis following different anesthesia induction techniques in pediatric patients: a propensity score-matched, observational study.","authors":"Anna Camporesi, Giulia Roveri, Luigi Vetrugno, Danilo Buonsenso, Valentina De Giorgis, Sara Costanzo, Ugo Maria Pierucci, Gloria Pelizzo","doi":"10.1186/s44158-024-00206-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Atelectasis is a well-documented complication in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. Its incidence varies significantly based on surgical procedures and anesthesia techniques. Inhalation induction, commonly used to avoid the discomfort of venipuncture, is suspected to cause higher rates of respiratory complications, including atelectasis, compared to intravenous induction. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of inhalation versus intravenous anesthesia induction on atelectasis formation in pediatric patients, as assessed by lung ultrasound (LUS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This propensity score-matched observational study was conducted at a tertiary pediatric hospital in Milan, Italy. Inclusion criteria were children ≤ 18 years undergoing elective surgery with general anesthesia. Patients were divided into inhalation and intravenous induction groups. LUS was performed before and after anesthesia induction to assess lung aeration. The primary endpoint was the global LUS score post-induction, with secondary endpoints including the incidence and distribution of atelectasis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 326 patients included, 65% underwent inhalation induction and 35% intravenous induction. The global LUS score was significantly higher in the inhalation group (12.0 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching (for age, presence of upper respiratory tract infection, duration of induction, and PEEP levels at induction), average treatment effect (ATE) of mask induction was 5.89 (95% CI, 3.21-8.58; p < 0.001) point on LUS global score and a coefficient of 0.35 (OR 1.41) for atelectasis.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Inhalation induction is associated with a higher incidence of atelectasis in pediatric patients also when we adjusted for clinically relevant covariates.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06069414.</p>","PeriodicalId":73597,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","volume":"4 1","pages":"69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11452973/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s44158-024-00206-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Atelectasis is a well-documented complication in pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia. Its incidence varies significantly based on surgical procedures and anesthesia techniques. Inhalation induction, commonly used to avoid the discomfort of venipuncture, is suspected to cause higher rates of respiratory complications, including atelectasis, compared to intravenous induction. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of inhalation versus intravenous anesthesia induction on atelectasis formation in pediatric patients, as assessed by lung ultrasound (LUS).

Methods: This propensity score-matched observational study was conducted at a tertiary pediatric hospital in Milan, Italy. Inclusion criteria were children ≤ 18 years undergoing elective surgery with general anesthesia. Patients were divided into inhalation and intravenous induction groups. LUS was performed before and after anesthesia induction to assess lung aeration. The primary endpoint was the global LUS score post-induction, with secondary endpoints including the incidence and distribution of atelectasis.

Results: Of the 326 patients included, 65% underwent inhalation induction and 35% intravenous induction. The global LUS score was significantly higher in the inhalation group (12.0 vs. 4.0, p < 0.001). After propensity score matching (for age, presence of upper respiratory tract infection, duration of induction, and PEEP levels at induction), average treatment effect (ATE) of mask induction was 5.89 (95% CI, 3.21-8.58; p < 0.001) point on LUS global score and a coefficient of 0.35 (OR 1.41) for atelectasis.

Discussion: Inhalation induction is associated with a higher incidence of atelectasis in pediatric patients also when we adjusted for clinically relevant covariates.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06069414.

对儿科患者采用不同麻醉诱导技术后发生肺不张的肺超声评估:一项倾向评分匹配的观察性研究。
导言:在接受全身麻醉的小儿患者中,气胸是一种有据可查的并发症。其发生率因手术程序和麻醉技术的不同而有很大差异。吸入诱导通常用于避免静脉穿刺带来的不适,但与静脉诱导相比,吸入诱导被怀疑会导致更高的呼吸系统并发症,包括肺不张。本研究旨在通过肺部超声(LUS)评估吸入麻醉诱导与静脉麻醉诱导对儿科患者肺不张形成的影响:这项倾向评分匹配观察研究在意大利米兰的一家三级儿科医院进行。纳入标准为接受全身麻醉择期手术的 18 岁以下儿童。患者分为吸入诱导组和静脉诱导组。在麻醉诱导前后进行 LUS,以评估肺通气情况。主要终点是诱导后的整体 LUS 评分,次要终点包括肺不张的发生率和分布情况:结果:在326名患者中,65%进行了吸入诱导,35%进行了静脉诱导。吸入组的总体 LUS 评分明显更高(12.0 对 4.0,P 讨论):吸入诱导与较高的儿科患者肺不张发生率有关,当我们调整临床相关协变量时也是如此:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT06069414。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信