- 作者列表："Corso SD","Boldorini JC","de Camargo AA","José A","Rached SZ","Athanazio RA","Stelmach R","Holland AE
BACKGROUND:Field walking tests are commonly used in patients with chronic pulmonary diseases for assessment of functional capacity. However, the physiological demands and magnitude of desaturation on 6-min walk test (6MWT), incremental shuttle walk test (ISWT), and endurance shuttle walk test (ESWT) have not been investigated in patients with bronchiectasis. The objective of this study was to compare the physiological responses and the magnitude of desaturation of subjects with bronchiectasis when performing the 6MWT, ISWT, and ESWT. METHODS:Thirty-two subjects underwent the 6MWT, ISWT, and ESWT on 3 different days. Pulmonary gas exchange, heart rate, and SpO2 were measured in all tests. RESULTS:There were no differences in the peak rate of oxygen uptake, ventilation, dyspnea, and leg fatigue between the tests. Equivalent cardiac demand (ie, heart rate at peak) was observed with the 6MWT (137 ± 21 beats/min) and the ESWT (142 ± 21 beats/min), but this was lower in the ISWT (135 ± 19 beats/min) compared to ESWT (P < .05). Most subjects achieved a vigorous exercise intensity (heart rate of 70-90% of predicted) in all tests. There was no difference in desaturation among the tests (6MWT: -6.8 ± 6.6%, ISWT: -6.1 ± 6.0%, and ESWT: -7.0 ± 5.4%). CONCLUSIONS:The 6MWT, ISWT, and ESWT induced similar physiological responses at the peak of exercise, eliciting a vigorous exercise intensity. The magnitude of desaturation was similar across tests. This means these tests can be used interchangeably for evaluation of exercise-induced desaturation.
背景: 野外行走试验通常用于慢性肺部疾病患者的功能能力评估。然而，6 min 步行试验 (6MWT) 、递增穿梭步行试验 (ISWT) 和耐力穿梭步行试验 (ESWT) 的生理需求和去饱和程度尚未调查支气管扩张患者。本研究的目的是比较进行 6MWT 、 ISWT 和 ESWT 时支气管扩张受试者的生理反应和去饱和程度。 方法: 32 名受试者在 3 个不同的日子接受 6MWT 、 ISWT 和 ESWT。所有试验均测定肺气体交换、心率和 SpO2。 结果: 两组之间的摄氧量、通气、呼吸困难和腿部乏力的峰值速率无差异。6MWT (137 ± 21 次/min) 和 ESWT (142 ± 21 次/min) 观察到等效心脏需求 (即峰值心率), 但这在 ISWT (135 ± 19 次/min) 中低于 ESWT (P
METHODS:Background Dye localization is a useful method for the resection of unidentifiable small pulmonary lesions. This study compares the transbronchial route with augmented fluoroscopic bronchoscopy (AFB) and conventional transthoracic CT-guided methods for preoperative dye localization in thoracoscopic surgery. Methods Between April 2015 and March 2019, a total of 231 patients with small pulmonary lesions who received preoperative dye localization via AFB or percutaneous CT-guided technique were enrolled in the study. A propensity-matched analysis, incorporating preoperative variables, was used to compare localization and surgical outcomes between the two groups. Results After matching, a total of 90 patients in the AFB group ( N = 30) and CT-guided group ( N = 60) were selected for analysis. No significant difference was noted in the demographic data between both the groups. Dye localization was successfully performed in 29 patients (96.7%) and 57 patients (95%) with AFB and CT-guided method, respectively. The localization duration (24.1 ± 8.3 vs. 21.4 ± 12.5 min, p = 0.297) and equivalent dose of radiation exposure (3.1 ± 1.5 vs. 2.5 ± 2.0 mSv, p = 0.130) were comparable in both the groups. No major procedure-related complications occurred in either group; however, a higher rate of pneumothorax (0 vs. 16.7%, p = 0.029) and focal intrapulmonary hemorrhage (3.3 vs. 26.7%, p = 0.008) was noted in the CT-guided group. Conclusion AFB dye marking is an effective alternative for the preoperative localization of small pulmonary lesions, with a lower risk of procedure-related complications than the conventional CT-guided method.
METHODS:Background The use of artificial intelligence, including machine learning, is increasing in medicine. Use of machine learning is rising in the prediction of patient outcomes. Machine learning may also be able to enhance and augment anesthesia clinical procedures such as airway management. In this study, we sought to develop a machine learning algorithm that could classify vocal cords and tracheal airway anatomy real-time during video laryngoscopy or bronchoscopy as well as compare the performance of three novel convolutional networks for detecting vocal cords and tracheal rings. Methods Following institutional approval, a clinical dataset of 775 video laryngoscopy and bronchoscopy videos was used. The dataset was divided into two categories for use for training and testing. We used three convolutional neural networks (CNNs): ResNet, Inception and MobileNet. Backpropagation and a mean squared error loss function were used to assess accuracy as well as minimize bias and variance. Following training, we assessed transferability using the generalization error of the CNN, sensitivity and specificity, average confidence error, outliers, overall confidence percentage, and frames per second for live video feeds. After the training was complete, 22 models using 0 to 25,000 steps were generated and compared. Results The overall confidence of classification for the vocal cords and tracheal rings for ResNet, Inception and MobileNet CNNs were as follows: 0.84, 0.78, and 0.64 for vocal cords, respectively, and 0.69, 0.72, 0.54 for tracheal rings, respectively. Transfer learning following additional training resulted in improved accuracy of ResNet and Inception for identifying the vocal cords (with a confidence of 0.96 and 0.93 respectively). The two best performing CNNs, ResNet and Inception, achieved a specificity of 0.985 and 0.971, respectively, and a sensitivity of 0.865 and 0.892, respectively. Inception was able to process the live video feeds at 10 FPS while ResNet processed at 5 FPS. Both were able to pass a feasibility test of identifying vocal cords and tracheal rings in a video feed. Conclusions We report the development and evaluation of a CNN that can identify and classify airway anatomy in real time. This neural network demonstrates high performance. The availability of artificial intelligence may improve airway management and bronchoscopy by helping to identify key anatomy real time. Thus, potentially improving performance and outcomes during these procedures. Further, this technology may theoretically be extended to the settings of airway pathology or airway management in the hands of experienced providers. The researchers in this study are exploring the performance of this neural network in clinical trials.
METHODS:BACKGROUND:The optimal mode of delivering topical anesthesia during flexible bronchoscopy remains unknown. This article compares the efficacy and safety of nebulized lignocaine, lignocaine oropharyngeal spray, or their combination. METHODS:Consecutive subjects were randomized 1:1:1 to receive nebulized lignocaine (2.5 mL of 4% solution, group A), oropharyngeal spray (10 actuations of 10% lignocaine, group B), or nebulization (2.5 mL, 4% lignocaine) and two actuations of 10% lignocaine spray (group C). The primary outcome was the subject-rated severity of cough according to a visual analog scale. The secondary outcomes included bronchoscopist-rated severity of cough and overall procedural satisfaction on a visual analog scale, total lignocaine dose, subject's willingness to undergo a repeat procedure, adverse reactions to lignocaine, and others. RESULTS:A total of 1,050 subjects (median age, 51 years; 64.8% men) were included. The median (interquartile range) score for subject-rated cough severity was significantly lower in group B compared to group C or group A (4 [1-10] vs 11 [4-24] vs 13 [5-30], respectively; P < .001). The bronchoscopist-rated severity of cough was also the least (P < .001), and the overall satisfaction was highest in group B (P < .001). The cumulative lignocaine dose administered was the least in group B (P < .001). A significantly higher proportion of subjects (P < .001) were willing to undergo a repeat bronchoscopy in group B (73.7%) than in groups A (49.1%) and C (59.4%). No lignocaine-related adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS:Ten actuations of 10% lignocaine oropharyngeal spray were superior to nebulized lignocaine or their combination for topical anesthesia during diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy. TRIAL REGISTRY:ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03109392; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.