接受肠内营养的危重病人超声评估胃内容物和胃容量的观察者间和观察者内变异性。

IF 3.4 Q2 Medicine
Héctor Andrés Ruiz Ávila, Carmelo José Espinosa Almanza, Cindy Yohana Fuentes Barreiro
{"title":"接受肠内营养的危重病人超声评估胃内容物和胃容量的观察者间和观察者内变异性。","authors":"Héctor Andrés Ruiz Ávila,&nbsp;Carmelo José Espinosa Almanza,&nbsp;Cindy Yohana Fuentes Barreiro","doi":"10.1186/s13089-023-00312-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The assessment of gastric content and volume using bedside ultrasound (US) has become a useful tool in emergency departments, anesthesiology departments and inpatient wards, as it provides a rapid and dynamic assessment of the gastric content of patients, which, allows making decisions regarding the risk of regurgitation or the need to adjust the strategy used to induce general anesthesia in patients with a full stomach. This assessment consists of two evaluations: a qualitative one, in which the status of the antrum, in terms of gastric content, is classified into three categories (empty, liquid content and full), and a quantitative one, where gastric volume is estimated. The objective of this study was to estimate the intra-observer and inter-observer agreement in ultrasound assessment of gastric content and volume in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 41 patients were included and each examiner performed 64 gastric US (n = 128). Participants' average age was 56.5 years (SD ± 12.6) and 63.4% were men. Regarding the qualitative evaluation of the antrum, in supine position both examiners classified the gastric content as grade 0 in 1 gastric US (1.5%), grade 1 in 4 gastric US (6.2%) and grade 2 in 59 (92.1%). Regarding intra-observer variability in the measurement of the area of the antrum, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), the difference of means between measurements and the 95% limits of agreement of Bland and Altman values were 0.95 (95% CI 0.940-0.977), - 0.47 cm<sup>2</sup> (SD ± 1.64) and - 3.70 cm<sup>2</sup> to 2.75 cm<sup>2</sup>, respectively, in EC1, and 0.94 (95% CI 0.922-0.973), - 0.18 cm<sup>2</sup> (SD ± 2.18) and - 4.47 cm<sup>2</sup> to 4.09 cm<sup>2</sup> in EC2. Concerning to inter-observer variability (EC1 vs EC2) in the measurement of the area of the antrum and of gastric volume, the following CCC, mean difference between measurements and 95% limits of agreement of Bland and Altman values were obtained: measurement of the area of the antrum: 0.84 (95% CI 0.778-0.911), - 0.86 cm<sup>2</sup> (SD ± 3.38) and - 7.50 cm<sup>2</sup> to 5.78 cm<sup>2</sup>; gastric volume measurement: 0.84 (95% CI 0.782-0.913), - 12.3 mL (SD ± 49.2) and - 108.8 mL to 84.0 mL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The assessment of gastric content and volume using bedside US in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation and receiving enteral nutrition showed a good intra and inter-rater reliability. Most of the patients included in the study had a high risk of pulmonary aspiration, since, according to the results of the gastric US evaluation, they had gastric volumes > 1.5 mL/kg.</p>","PeriodicalId":36911,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasound Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10024819/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Inter-observer and intra-observer variability in ultrasound assessment of gastric content and volume in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition.\",\"authors\":\"Héctor Andrés Ruiz Ávila,&nbsp;Carmelo José Espinosa Almanza,&nbsp;Cindy Yohana Fuentes Barreiro\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13089-023-00312-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The assessment of gastric content and volume using bedside ultrasound (US) has become a useful tool in emergency departments, anesthesiology departments and inpatient wards, as it provides a rapid and dynamic assessment of the gastric content of patients, which, allows making decisions regarding the risk of regurgitation or the need to adjust the strategy used to induce general anesthesia in patients with a full stomach. This assessment consists of two evaluations: a qualitative one, in which the status of the antrum, in terms of gastric content, is classified into three categories (empty, liquid content and full), and a quantitative one, where gastric volume is estimated. The objective of this study was to estimate the intra-observer and inter-observer agreement in ultrasound assessment of gastric content and volume in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 41 patients were included and each examiner performed 64 gastric US (n = 128). Participants' average age was 56.5 years (SD ± 12.6) and 63.4% were men. Regarding the qualitative evaluation of the antrum, in supine position both examiners classified the gastric content as grade 0 in 1 gastric US (1.5%), grade 1 in 4 gastric US (6.2%) and grade 2 in 59 (92.1%). Regarding intra-observer variability in the measurement of the area of the antrum, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), the difference of means between measurements and the 95% limits of agreement of Bland and Altman values were 0.95 (95% CI 0.940-0.977), - 0.47 cm<sup>2</sup> (SD ± 1.64) and - 3.70 cm<sup>2</sup> to 2.75 cm<sup>2</sup>, respectively, in EC1, and 0.94 (95% CI 0.922-0.973), - 0.18 cm<sup>2</sup> (SD ± 2.18) and - 4.47 cm<sup>2</sup> to 4.09 cm<sup>2</sup> in EC2. Concerning to inter-observer variability (EC1 vs EC2) in the measurement of the area of the antrum and of gastric volume, the following CCC, mean difference between measurements and 95% limits of agreement of Bland and Altman values were obtained: measurement of the area of the antrum: 0.84 (95% CI 0.778-0.911), - 0.86 cm<sup>2</sup> (SD ± 3.38) and - 7.50 cm<sup>2</sup> to 5.78 cm<sup>2</sup>; gastric volume measurement: 0.84 (95% CI 0.782-0.913), - 12.3 mL (SD ± 49.2) and - 108.8 mL to 84.0 mL.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The assessment of gastric content and volume using bedside US in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation and receiving enteral nutrition showed a good intra and inter-rater reliability. Most of the patients included in the study had a high risk of pulmonary aspiration, since, according to the results of the gastric US evaluation, they had gastric volumes > 1.5 mL/kg.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasound Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10024819/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasound Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-023-00312-x\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-023-00312-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:床边超声(US)评估胃内容物和胃容量已成为急诊科、麻醉科和住院病房的有用工具,因为它提供了对患者胃内容物的快速和动态评估,可以决定是否有反流的风险,或者是否需要调整胃满患者诱导全身麻醉的策略。这种评估包括两种评估:一种是定性评估,根据胃内容物,将胃窦的状态分为三类(空、液、满);另一种是定量评估,估计胃容量。本研究的目的是评估接受肠内营养的危重患者超声评估胃内容物和胃容量时观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性。结果:共纳入41例患者,每位检查员进行64次胃超声检查(n = 128)。参与者的平均年龄为56.5岁(SD±12.6),63.4%为男性。对于胃窦的定性评价,在仰卧位时,两名检查者将胃内容物分为1个胃US 0级(1.5%),4个胃US 1级(6.2%)和59个胃内容物2级(92.1%)。关于观察者内腔面积测量的变异性,在EC1中,Lin’s一致性相关系数(CCC)、测量值之间的均数差和Bland和Altman值的95%一致限分别为0.95 (95% CI 0.940-0.977)、- 0.47 cm2 (SD±1.64)和- 3.70 cm2至2.75 cm2,在EC2中为0.94 (95% CI 0.922-0.973)、- 0.18 cm2 (SD±2.18)和- 4.47 cm2至4.09 cm2。关于胃窦面积和胃容积测量的观察者间变异性(EC1 vs EC2),获得了以下CCC,测量值之间的平均差异和Bland和Altman值的95%一致限:胃窦面积测量:0.84 (95% CI 0.778-0.911), - 0.86 cm2 (SD±3.38)和- 7.50 cm2至5.78 cm2;胃容量测量值:0.84 (95% CI 0.782-0.913), - 12.3 mL (SD±49.2)和- 108.8 mL至84.0 mL。结论:应用床边US评估机械通气和肠内营养的危重患者胃内容物和胃容量具有良好的组内和组间可靠性。本研究纳入的大多数患者存在肺误吸的高风险,因为根据胃US评估结果,他们的胃容量> 1.5 mL/kg。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Inter-observer and intra-observer variability in ultrasound assessment of gastric content and volume in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition.

Inter-observer and intra-observer variability in ultrasound assessment of gastric content and volume in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition.

Inter-observer and intra-observer variability in ultrasound assessment of gastric content and volume in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition.

Inter-observer and intra-observer variability in ultrasound assessment of gastric content and volume in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition.

Background: The assessment of gastric content and volume using bedside ultrasound (US) has become a useful tool in emergency departments, anesthesiology departments and inpatient wards, as it provides a rapid and dynamic assessment of the gastric content of patients, which, allows making decisions regarding the risk of regurgitation or the need to adjust the strategy used to induce general anesthesia in patients with a full stomach. This assessment consists of two evaluations: a qualitative one, in which the status of the antrum, in terms of gastric content, is classified into three categories (empty, liquid content and full), and a quantitative one, where gastric volume is estimated. The objective of this study was to estimate the intra-observer and inter-observer agreement in ultrasound assessment of gastric content and volume in critically ill patients receiving enteral nutrition.

Results: A total of 41 patients were included and each examiner performed 64 gastric US (n = 128). Participants' average age was 56.5 years (SD ± 12.6) and 63.4% were men. Regarding the qualitative evaluation of the antrum, in supine position both examiners classified the gastric content as grade 0 in 1 gastric US (1.5%), grade 1 in 4 gastric US (6.2%) and grade 2 in 59 (92.1%). Regarding intra-observer variability in the measurement of the area of the antrum, Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), the difference of means between measurements and the 95% limits of agreement of Bland and Altman values were 0.95 (95% CI 0.940-0.977), - 0.47 cm2 (SD ± 1.64) and - 3.70 cm2 to 2.75 cm2, respectively, in EC1, and 0.94 (95% CI 0.922-0.973), - 0.18 cm2 (SD ± 2.18) and - 4.47 cm2 to 4.09 cm2 in EC2. Concerning to inter-observer variability (EC1 vs EC2) in the measurement of the area of the antrum and of gastric volume, the following CCC, mean difference between measurements and 95% limits of agreement of Bland and Altman values were obtained: measurement of the area of the antrum: 0.84 (95% CI 0.778-0.911), - 0.86 cm2 (SD ± 3.38) and - 7.50 cm2 to 5.78 cm2; gastric volume measurement: 0.84 (95% CI 0.782-0.913), - 12.3 mL (SD ± 49.2) and - 108.8 mL to 84.0 mL.

Conclusions: The assessment of gastric content and volume using bedside US in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation and receiving enteral nutrition showed a good intra and inter-rater reliability. Most of the patients included in the study had a high risk of pulmonary aspiration, since, according to the results of the gastric US evaluation, they had gastric volumes > 1.5 mL/kg.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ultrasound Journal
Ultrasound Journal Health Professions-Radiological and Ultrasound Technology
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
2.90%
发文量
45
审稿时长
22 weeks
×
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