{"title":"鼻咽通气辅助可提高高分辨率食管测压导管的食管插管率。","authors":"Andrew Leopold, Angela Wu, Guofeng Xie","doi":"10.1111/nmo.14824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) is the gold standard test for esophageal motility disorders. Nasopharyngeal airway-assisted insertion of the HREM catheter is a suggested salvage technique for failure from the inability to pass the catheter through the upper esophageal sphincter (UES). It has not been demonstrated that the nasopharyngeal airway improves procedural success rate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing HREM between March 2019 and March 2023 were evaluated. Chart review was conducted for patient factors and procedural success rates before and after use of nasopharyngeal airway. Patients from March 2019 to May 2021 did not have nasopharyngeal airway available and were compared to patients from May 2021 to March 2023 who had the nasopharyngeal airway available.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>In total, 523 HREM studies were conducted; 234 occurred prior to nasopharyngeal airway availability, and 289 occurred with nasopharyngeal airway availability. There was no difference in HREM catheter UES intubation rates between periods when a nasopharyngeal airway attempt was considered procedural failure (85% vs. 85%, p = 0.9). Nasopharyngeal airway use after UES intubation failure lead to improved UES intubation rates (94% vs. 85%, p < 0.01). Thirty-six patients that failed HREM catheter UES intubation had the procedure reattempted with a nasopharyngeal airway, 30 (83%) of which were successful. The nasopharyngeal airway assisted catheter UES intubation for failures attributed to nasal pain and hypersensitivity, gagging, coughing, and pharyngeal coiling.</p><p><strong>Conclusions & inferences: </strong>Utilization of the nasopharyngeal airway increased rates of UES intubation. When HREM catheter placement through the UES fails, placement of a nasopharyngeal airway can be trialed to overcome patient procedural intolerance.</p>","PeriodicalId":19123,"journal":{"name":"Neurogastroenterology and Motility","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11246217/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nasopharyngeal airway assistance improves esophageal intubation rates of high-resolution esophageal manometry catheters.\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Leopold, Angela Wu, Guofeng Xie\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/nmo.14824\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>High-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) is the gold standard test for esophageal motility disorders. Nasopharyngeal airway-assisted insertion of the HREM catheter is a suggested salvage technique for failure from the inability to pass the catheter through the upper esophageal sphincter (UES). It has not been demonstrated that the nasopharyngeal airway improves procedural success rate.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients undergoing HREM between March 2019 and March 2023 were evaluated. Chart review was conducted for patient factors and procedural success rates before and after use of nasopharyngeal airway. Patients from March 2019 to May 2021 did not have nasopharyngeal airway available and were compared to patients from May 2021 to March 2023 who had the nasopharyngeal airway available.</p><p><strong>Key results: </strong>In total, 523 HREM studies were conducted; 234 occurred prior to nasopharyngeal airway availability, and 289 occurred with nasopharyngeal airway availability. There was no difference in HREM catheter UES intubation rates between periods when a nasopharyngeal airway attempt was considered procedural failure (85% vs. 85%, p = 0.9). Nasopharyngeal airway use after UES intubation failure lead to improved UES intubation rates (94% vs. 85%, p < 0.01). Thirty-six patients that failed HREM catheter UES intubation had the procedure reattempted with a nasopharyngeal airway, 30 (83%) of which were successful. The nasopharyngeal airway assisted catheter UES intubation for failures attributed to nasal pain and hypersensitivity, gagging, coughing, and pharyngeal coiling.</p><p><strong>Conclusions & inferences: </strong>Utilization of the nasopharyngeal airway increased rates of UES intubation. When HREM catheter placement through the UES fails, placement of a nasopharyngeal airway can be trialed to overcome patient procedural intolerance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19123,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurogastroenterology and Motility\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11246217/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurogastroenterology and Motility\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14824\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/5/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurogastroenterology and Motility","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/nmo.14824","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Background: High-resolution esophageal manometry (HREM) is the gold standard test for esophageal motility disorders. Nasopharyngeal airway-assisted insertion of the HREM catheter is a suggested salvage technique for failure from the inability to pass the catheter through the upper esophageal sphincter (UES). It has not been demonstrated that the nasopharyngeal airway improves procedural success rate.
Methods: Patients undergoing HREM between March 2019 and March 2023 were evaluated. Chart review was conducted for patient factors and procedural success rates before and after use of nasopharyngeal airway. Patients from March 2019 to May 2021 did not have nasopharyngeal airway available and were compared to patients from May 2021 to March 2023 who had the nasopharyngeal airway available.
Key results: In total, 523 HREM studies were conducted; 234 occurred prior to nasopharyngeal airway availability, and 289 occurred with nasopharyngeal airway availability. There was no difference in HREM catheter UES intubation rates between periods when a nasopharyngeal airway attempt was considered procedural failure (85% vs. 85%, p = 0.9). Nasopharyngeal airway use after UES intubation failure lead to improved UES intubation rates (94% vs. 85%, p < 0.01). Thirty-six patients that failed HREM catheter UES intubation had the procedure reattempted with a nasopharyngeal airway, 30 (83%) of which were successful. The nasopharyngeal airway assisted catheter UES intubation for failures attributed to nasal pain and hypersensitivity, gagging, coughing, and pharyngeal coiling.
Conclusions & inferences: Utilization of the nasopharyngeal airway increased rates of UES intubation. When HREM catheter placement through the UES fails, placement of a nasopharyngeal airway can be trialed to overcome patient procedural intolerance.
期刊介绍:
Neurogastroenterology & Motility (NMO) is the official Journal of the European Society of Neurogastroenterology & Motility (ESNM) and the American Neurogastroenterology and Motility Society (ANMS). It is edited by James Galligan, Albert Bredenoord, and Stephen Vanner. The editorial and peer review process is independent of the societies affiliated to the journal and publisher: Neither the ANMS, the ESNM or the Publisher have editorial decision-making power. Whenever these are relevant to the content being considered or published, the editors, journal management committee and editorial board declare their interests and affiliations.