intraprocedural imaging
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

22
(FIVE YEARS 1)

H-INDEX

6
(FIVE YEARS 0)

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael A. Pritchett ◽  
Kelvin Lau ◽  
Scott Skibo ◽  
Karen A. Phillips ◽  
Krish Bhadra

AbstractPartnership between anesthesia providers and proceduralists is essential to ensure patient safety and optimize outcomes. A renewed importance of this axiom has emerged in advanced bronchoscopy and interventional pulmonology. While anesthesia-induced atelectasis is common, it is not typically clinically significant. Advanced guided bronchoscopic biopsy is an exception in which anesthesia protocols substantially impact outcomes. Procedure success depends on careful ventilation to avoid excessive motion, reduce distortion causing computed tomography (CT)-to-body-divergence, stabilize dependent areas, and optimize breath-hold maneuvers to prevent atelectasis. Herein are anesthesia recommendations during guided bronchoscopy. An FiO2 of 0.6 to 0.8 is recommended for pre-oxygenation, maintained at the lowest tolerable level for the entire the procedure. Expeditious intubation (not rapid-sequence) with a larger endotracheal tube and non-depolarizing muscle relaxants are preferred. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of up to 10–12 cm H2O and increased tidal volumes help to maintain optimal lung inflation, if tolerated by the patient as determined during recruitment. A breath-hold is required to reduce motion artifact during intraprocedural imaging (e.g., cone-beam CT, digital tomosynthesis), timed at the end of a normal tidal breath (peak inspiration) and held until pressures equilibrate and the imaging cycle is complete. Use of the adjustable pressure-limiting valve is critical to maintain the desired PEEP and reduce movement during breath-hold maneuvers. These measures will reduce atelectasis and CT-to-body divergence, minimize motion artifact, and provide clearer, more accurate images during guided bronchoscopy. Following these recommendations will facilitate a successful lung biopsy, potentially accelerating the time to treatment by avoiding additional biopsies. Application of these methods should be at the discretion of the anesthesiologist and the proceduralist; best medical judgement should be used in all cases to ensure the safety of the patient.


2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 121-123
Author(s):  
Phillip Belone ◽  
◽  
Jason Lee ◽  
Michael Larson

No abstract available. Manuscript truncated after 150 words. A gentleman in his late 50s with a past medical history of squamous cell carcinoma at the base of the tongue had numerous slowly-growing pneumocyst-like lesions despite clinical remission status post surgery and chemoradiation. Biopsy of one of these lesions was recommended by a multidisciplinary tumor board. An outpatient pre-procedural supine chest CT revealed a right pneumothorax above the lesion targeted for biopsy. A subsequent pre-procedural right lateral decubitus chest CT three weeks later demonstrated a left-sided pneumothorax, raising concern for buffalo chest. (A less likely possibility would be spontaneous resolution of the right pneumothorax and development of a new left pneumothorax in the less than 4-week interval.) Intraprocedural imaging continued to demonstrate the left-sided pneumothorax. A biopsy touch preparation of the first sample obtained did not demonstrate malignancy. Therefore, an attempt was made at obtaining another sample. However, the patient developed a brief but forceful coughing fit, resulting in …


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 720-724
Author(s):  
Paul Werner ◽  
Marco Russo ◽  
Sabine Scherzer ◽  
Tandis Aref ◽  
Iuliana Coti ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 532-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca T. Hahn ◽  
Michael Nabauer ◽  
Michel Zuber ◽  
Tamim M. Nazif ◽  
Jörg Hausleiter ◽  
...  

2017 ◽  
Vol 01 (03) ◽  
pp. 155-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baljendra Kapoor ◽  
Nikunj Chauhan

AbstractIntraprocedural three-dimensional imaging and guidance tools, such as cone-beam CT (CBCT), provide valuable guidance in navigating through challenging vascular and nonvascular structures while performing complex hepatobiliary and portal venous interventions, especially in patients with unconventional anatomy and technically difficult pathology. With the advent of these tools, many of the procedures that were once considered contraindicated can now be performed due to improved safety profile and operator confidence. This review describes application of these tools in various oncologic and nononcologic hepatobiliary and portal venous interventions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document