Chartis Measurement of Collateral Ventilation: Conscious Sedation versus General AnesthesiaWelling, J. B. A., Hartman, J. E., Ten Hacken, N. H. T., Franz, I., Charbonnier, J-P., van Rikxoort, E. M., Kerstjens, H. A. M., Klooster, K. & Slebos, D-J., 2018, In : Respiration. 96, 5, p. 480-487 8 p.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review
BACKGROUND: Absence of interlobar collateral ventilation using the Chartis measurement is the key predictor for successful endobronchial valve treatment in severe emphysema. Chartis was originally validated in spontaneous breathing patients under conscious sedation (CS); however, this can be challenging due to cough, mucus secretion, mucosal swelling, and bronchoconstriction. Performing Chartis under general anesthesia (GA) avoids these problems and may result in an easier procedure with a higher success rate. However, using Chartis under GA with positive pressure ventilation has not been validated.
OBJECTIVES: In this study we investigated the impact of anesthesia technique, CS versus GA, on the feasibility and outcomes of Chartis measurement.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all Chartis measurements performed at our hospital from October 2010 until December 2017.
RESULTS: We analyzed 250 emphysema patients (median forced expiratory volume in 1 s 26%, range 12-52% predicted). In 121 patients (48%) the measurement was performed using CS, in 124 (50%) using GA, and in 5 (2%) both anesthesia techniques were used. In total, 746 Chartis readings were analyzed (432 CS, 277 GA, and 37 combination). Testing under CS took significantly longer than GA (median 19 min [range 5-65] vs. 11 min [3-35], p < 0.001) and required more measurements (3 [1-13] vs. 2 [1-6], p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in target lobe volume reduction after treatment (-1,123 mL [-3,604 to 332] in CS vs. -1,251 mL [-3,333 to -1] in GA, p = 0.35).
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, Chartis measurement under CS took significantly longer and required more measurements than under GA, without a difference in treatment outcome. We recommend a prospective trial comparing both techniques within the same patients to validate this approach.
|Number of pages||8|
|Publication status||Published - 2018|