Use of Laryngeal Ultrasound to Observe Laryngeal Movements During Noninvasive Ventilation in Healthy Volunteers.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Anne Kristine Brekka, George Ntoumenopoulos, Ola Drange Røksund, Merete Salveson Engeset, Hege Clemm, Thomas Halvorsen, Maria Vollsæter, Tiina Andersen
{"title":"Use of Laryngeal Ultrasound to Observe Laryngeal Movements During Noninvasive Ventilation in Healthy Volunteers.","authors":"Anne Kristine Brekka, George Ntoumenopoulos, Ola Drange Røksund, Merete Salveson Engeset, Hege Clemm, Thomas Halvorsen, Maria Vollsæter, Tiina Andersen","doi":"10.4187/respcare.12201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Transnasal fiberoptic laryngoscopy (TFL) has revealed that laryngeal obstruction can hamper assisted ventilation. TFL may be considered invasive, and laryngeal ultrasound (US) could be a noninvasive alternative. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using laryngeal US to study laryngeal movements in healthy adult volunteers undergoing noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and to compare the observations with those of simultaneous TFL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this cross-sectional study, 30 participants (19 females, age 22-65 y) underwent simultaneous video-recorded TFL and laryngeal US, breathing with and without NIV. Laryngeal US was repeated for anterior and both lateral approaches; the last 5 breaths from each assessment were analyzed. The participants rated discomfort using a numeric rating scale (NRS) from 0 (no discomfort)-10 (worst). Two blinded raters separately described and scored the TFL and laryngeal US recordings, and the findings were subsequently compared. The last 10 laryngeal US recordings were tested for interrater reliability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>All participants were successfully assessed using the anterior and both lateral laryngeal US approaches during NIV. Both techniques were well tolerated; 5/30 scored 0 on NRS for TFL and 22/30 for laryngeal US. The visualization rate for all recorded breaths was 99.1% for TFL compared to 81.7% for laryngeal US; overall concordance rate was 84.6%. The discordance rate for the TFL versus laryngeal US observations was 11.1% for vocal fold movements and 11.7% for aryepiglottic fold movements. Interrater reliability showed substantial agreement (0.71).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Laryngeal US emerged as a feasible method to describe laryngeal movements during NIV, providing high-quality observations and high concordance with TFL.</p>","PeriodicalId":21125,"journal":{"name":"Respiratory care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Respiratory care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4187/respcare.12201","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Transnasal fiberoptic laryngoscopy (TFL) has revealed that laryngeal obstruction can hamper assisted ventilation. TFL may be considered invasive, and laryngeal ultrasound (US) could be a noninvasive alternative. The objective of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using laryngeal US to study laryngeal movements in healthy adult volunteers undergoing noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and to compare the observations with those of simultaneous TFL.

Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 30 participants (19 females, age 22-65 y) underwent simultaneous video-recorded TFL and laryngeal US, breathing with and without NIV. Laryngeal US was repeated for anterior and both lateral approaches; the last 5 breaths from each assessment were analyzed. The participants rated discomfort using a numeric rating scale (NRS) from 0 (no discomfort)-10 (worst). Two blinded raters separately described and scored the TFL and laryngeal US recordings, and the findings were subsequently compared. The last 10 laryngeal US recordings were tested for interrater reliability.

Results: All participants were successfully assessed using the anterior and both lateral laryngeal US approaches during NIV. Both techniques were well tolerated; 5/30 scored 0 on NRS for TFL and 22/30 for laryngeal US. The visualization rate for all recorded breaths was 99.1% for TFL compared to 81.7% for laryngeal US; overall concordance rate was 84.6%. The discordance rate for the TFL versus laryngeal US observations was 11.1% for vocal fold movements and 11.7% for aryepiglottic fold movements. Interrater reliability showed substantial agreement (0.71).

Conclusions: Laryngeal US emerged as a feasible method to describe laryngeal movements during NIV, providing high-quality observations and high concordance with TFL.

使用喉部超声波观察健康志愿者在无创通气过程中的喉部运动。
背景:经鼻纤维喉镜(TFL)检查发现,喉阻塞会妨碍辅助通气。经鼻纤维喉镜(TFL)可能被认为是有创检查,而喉超声(US)可能是一种无创的替代方法。本研究的目的是调查使用喉超声研究接受无创通气(NIV)的健康成年志愿者喉部运动的可行性,并将观察结果与同步 TFL 的观察结果进行比较:在这项横断面研究中,30 名参与者(19 名女性,年龄 22-65 岁)接受了同步视频录像 TFL 和喉 US,并在有无 NIV 的情况下进行呼吸。对前侧和两侧入路重复进行喉部 US;对每次评估的最后 5 次呼吸进行分析。参与者使用 0(无不适感)-10(最严重)的数字评分表(NRS)对不适感进行评分。两名双盲评分员分别对 TFL 和喉 US 记录进行描述和评分,随后对结果进行比较。对最后 10 个喉部 US 记录进行了互测可靠性测试:结果:所有参与者都在 NIV 期间成功地使用了前侧和两侧喉 US 方法进行了评估。两种技术的耐受性都很好;5/30 的 TFL NRS 评分为 0,22/30 的喉 US 评分为 0。所有记录呼吸的可视化率,TFL 为 99.1%,而喉部 US 为 81.7%;总体一致率为 84.6%。TFL 与喉 US 观察结果的不一致率分别为:声带运动 11.1%,会厌运动 11.7%。相互间的可靠性显示出很大的一致性(0.71):结论:喉部 US 是描述 NIV 期间喉部运动的可行方法,可提供高质量的观察结果,且与 TFL 高度一致。
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
Respiratory care
Respiratory care 医学-呼吸系统
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
16.00%
发文量
209
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: RESPIRATORY CARE is the official monthly science journal of the American Association for Respiratory Care. It is indexed in PubMed and included in ISI''s Web of Science.
×
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