Publication

Collateral Ventilation Measurement Using Chartis Procedural Sedation vs General Anesthesia: procedural sedation versus general anesthesia

Welling, J. B. A., Klooster, K., Hartman, J. E., Kerstjens, H. A. M., Franz, I., Struys, M. M. R. F., Absalom, A. R., Slebos, D-J. & Barends, C. R. M., Nov-2019, In : Chest. 156, 5, p. 984-990 7 p.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

APA

Welling, J. B. A., Klooster, K., Hartman, J. E., Kerstjens, H. A. M., Franz, I., Struys, M. M. R. F., ... Barends, C. R. M. (2019). Collateral Ventilation Measurement Using Chartis Procedural Sedation vs General Anesthesia: procedural sedation versus general anesthesia. Chest, 156(5), 984-990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.07.025

Author

Welling, Jorrit B A ; Klooster, Karin ; Hartman, Jorine E ; Kerstjens, Huib A M ; Franz, Ina ; Struys, Michel M R F ; Absalom, Anthony R ; Slebos, Dirk-Jan ; Barends, Clemens R M. / Collateral Ventilation Measurement Using Chartis Procedural Sedation vs General Anesthesia : procedural sedation versus general anesthesia. In: Chest. 2019 ; Vol. 156, No. 5. pp. 984-990.

Harvard

Welling, JBA, Klooster, K, Hartman, JE, Kerstjens, HAM, Franz, I, Struys, MMRF, Absalom, AR, Slebos, D-J & Barends, CRM 2019, 'Collateral Ventilation Measurement Using Chartis Procedural Sedation vs General Anesthesia: procedural sedation versus general anesthesia', Chest, vol. 156, no. 5, pp. 984-990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.07.025

Standard

Collateral Ventilation Measurement Using Chartis Procedural Sedation vs General Anesthesia : procedural sedation versus general anesthesia. / Welling, Jorrit B A; Klooster, Karin; Hartman, Jorine E; Kerstjens, Huib A M; Franz, Ina; Struys, Michel M R F; Absalom, Anthony R; Slebos, Dirk-Jan; Barends, Clemens R M.

In: Chest, Vol. 156, No. 5, 11.2019, p. 984-990.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Vancouver

Welling JBA, Klooster K, Hartman JE, Kerstjens HAM, Franz I, Struys MMRF et al. Collateral Ventilation Measurement Using Chartis Procedural Sedation vs General Anesthesia: procedural sedation versus general anesthesia. Chest. 2019 Nov;156(5):984-990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2019.07.025


BibTeX

@article{774b0be4aae14621bd31b4a874eb2b4b,
title = "Collateral Ventilation Measurement Using Chartis Procedural Sedation vs General Anesthesia: procedural sedation versus general anesthesia",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Absence of interlobar collateral ventilation is key to successful endobronchial valve treatment in patients with severe emphysema and can be functionally assessed by using the Chartis measurement. This system has been validated during spontaneous breathing, undergoing procedural sedation (PS), but can also be performed under general anesthesia. Performing the Chartis measurement under PS is often challenging because of coughing, mucus secretion, and difficulties in maintaining an adequate level of sedation. The objective of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in Chartis measurement outcomes between PS and general anesthesia.METHODS: In this prospective study, patients underwent Chartis measurements under both PS and general anesthesia. Study outcomes were Chartis measurement duration, number of measurements, feasibility, and success rate.RESULTS: The study included 30 patients with severe emphysema (mean age, 62 years; median FEV1, 29{\%} of predicted). Chartis measurement duration was significantly longer under PS than under general anesthesia (mean, 20.3 +/- 4.2 min vs 15.1 +/- 4.4 min; P <.001). There was no difference in the number (median [range]) of measurements performed (2 [1-3] for PS vs 1 [1-3] for general anesthesia; P= 1.00). Chartis measurement was more feasible during general anesthesia (median sum of all feasibility scores, 12 [range, 6-26] for PS vs 7 [5-13] for general anesthesia; P <.001). There was no statistical difference in success rate: 77{\%} of PS cases vs 97{\%} of general anesthesia cases (P = .07).CONCLUSIONS: This study found that Chartis measurement under general anesthesia is faster and more feasible to perform compared with performance with PS, without affecting measurement outcomes.",
keywords = "Chartis measurement, collateral ventilation, endobronchial valve treatment, general anesthesia, procedural sedation, LUNG-VOLUME REDUCTION, ENDOBRONCHIAL VALVES, EMPHYSEMA, THERAPY, AGE",
author = "Welling, {Jorrit B A} and Karin Klooster and Hartman, {Jorine E} and Kerstjens, {Huib A M} and Ina Franz and Struys, {Michel M R F} and Absalom, {Anthony R} and Dirk-Jan Slebos and Barends, {Clemens R M}",
note = "Copyright {\circledC} 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.",
year = "2019",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.chest.2019.07.025",
language = "English",
volume = "156",
pages = "984--990",
journal = "Chest",
issn = "0012-3692",
publisher = "ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV",
number = "5",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Collateral Ventilation Measurement Using Chartis Procedural Sedation vs General Anesthesia

T2 - procedural sedation versus general anesthesia

AU - Welling, Jorrit B A

AU - Klooster, Karin

AU - Hartman, Jorine E

AU - Kerstjens, Huib A M

AU - Franz, Ina

AU - Struys, Michel M R F

AU - Absalom, Anthony R

AU - Slebos, Dirk-Jan

AU - Barends, Clemens R M

N1 - Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2019/11

Y1 - 2019/11

N2 - BACKGROUND: Absence of interlobar collateral ventilation is key to successful endobronchial valve treatment in patients with severe emphysema and can be functionally assessed by using the Chartis measurement. This system has been validated during spontaneous breathing, undergoing procedural sedation (PS), but can also be performed under general anesthesia. Performing the Chartis measurement under PS is often challenging because of coughing, mucus secretion, and difficulties in maintaining an adequate level of sedation. The objective of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in Chartis measurement outcomes between PS and general anesthesia.METHODS: In this prospective study, patients underwent Chartis measurements under both PS and general anesthesia. Study outcomes were Chartis measurement duration, number of measurements, feasibility, and success rate.RESULTS: The study included 30 patients with severe emphysema (mean age, 62 years; median FEV1, 29% of predicted). Chartis measurement duration was significantly longer under PS than under general anesthesia (mean, 20.3 +/- 4.2 min vs 15.1 +/- 4.4 min; P <.001). There was no difference in the number (median [range]) of measurements performed (2 [1-3] for PS vs 1 [1-3] for general anesthesia; P= 1.00). Chartis measurement was more feasible during general anesthesia (median sum of all feasibility scores, 12 [range, 6-26] for PS vs 7 [5-13] for general anesthesia; P <.001). There was no statistical difference in success rate: 77% of PS cases vs 97% of general anesthesia cases (P = .07).CONCLUSIONS: This study found that Chartis measurement under general anesthesia is faster and more feasible to perform compared with performance with PS, without affecting measurement outcomes.

AB - BACKGROUND: Absence of interlobar collateral ventilation is key to successful endobronchial valve treatment in patients with severe emphysema and can be functionally assessed by using the Chartis measurement. This system has been validated during spontaneous breathing, undergoing procedural sedation (PS), but can also be performed under general anesthesia. Performing the Chartis measurement under PS is often challenging because of coughing, mucus secretion, and difficulties in maintaining an adequate level of sedation. The objective of this study was to investigate whether there is a difference in Chartis measurement outcomes between PS and general anesthesia.METHODS: In this prospective study, patients underwent Chartis measurements under both PS and general anesthesia. Study outcomes were Chartis measurement duration, number of measurements, feasibility, and success rate.RESULTS: The study included 30 patients with severe emphysema (mean age, 62 years; median FEV1, 29% of predicted). Chartis measurement duration was significantly longer under PS than under general anesthesia (mean, 20.3 +/- 4.2 min vs 15.1 +/- 4.4 min; P <.001). There was no difference in the number (median [range]) of measurements performed (2 [1-3] for PS vs 1 [1-3] for general anesthesia; P= 1.00). Chartis measurement was more feasible during general anesthesia (median sum of all feasibility scores, 12 [range, 6-26] for PS vs 7 [5-13] for general anesthesia; P <.001). There was no statistical difference in success rate: 77% of PS cases vs 97% of general anesthesia cases (P = .07).CONCLUSIONS: This study found that Chartis measurement under general anesthesia is faster and more feasible to perform compared with performance with PS, without affecting measurement outcomes.

KW - Chartis measurement

KW - collateral ventilation

KW - endobronchial valve treatment

KW - general anesthesia

KW - procedural sedation

KW - LUNG-VOLUME REDUCTION

KW - ENDOBRONCHIAL VALVES

KW - EMPHYSEMA

KW - THERAPY

KW - AGE

U2 - 10.1016/j.chest.2019.07.025

DO - 10.1016/j.chest.2019.07.025

M3 - Article

C2 - 31421111

VL - 156

SP - 984

EP - 990

JO - Chest

JF - Chest

SN - 0012-3692

IS - 5

ER -

ID: 94584425