Comparison of lung ultrasound technique versus clinical method to evaluate the accuracy of size and placement of left endobronchial double lumen tube in patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery: a prospective observational study.

Anthropometric measurements like height and gender have been frequently found to be inaccurate in prediction of size of double lumen tube (DLT). A tracheal ultrasonography (TUS) is a technique that can be used to predict the size of DLT and its correct placement for lung isolation. We aim to check the accuracy of ultrasound over clinical methods. This prospective study included 68 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery requiring one-lung ventilation (OLV) with DLT. The groups were assessed for the size of DLT by either anthropometric measurement using height and gender (Group C) or ultrasound method (Group U). Further, the accuracy of placement of DLT was assessed through, either lung auscultation in group C or various ultrasonographic and ventilatory parameters such as lung isolation in the first attempt (lung sliding and lung pulse sign), oxygenation status and peak airway pressure, in group U. Surgeon satisfaction score was also compared in both the groups. The accuracy of predicted DLT size between Group C and Group U was statistically significant (p=0.044). In Group C, 56% of patients showed a mismatch between the predicted DLT size and the actual size required, while in Group U, the mismatch was only 32.4%. The accuracy of DLT placement through group C was 41% as compared to 79% in Group U. Surgeon satisfaction score was also significantly higher in Group U as compared to Group C (p=0.0028). Thus, our study suggests that tracheal and chest ultrasonography for DLT size selection and placement for lung isolation is superior to clinical methods.

Role of Thromboelastography and Thromboelastometry in Predicting Risk of Hypercoagulability and Thrombosis in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

Thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry are the viscoelastic point of care devices that use whole blood samples to assess coagulation and fibrinolysis. These devices give information from initiation of the coagulation cascade, activation of clotting factors to fibrin cross-linking, and contribution of fibrinogen and platelet to clot strength and clot lysis. Viscoelastic point of care tests are well established in hypocoaguable states like trauma, cardiac surgery, liver transplantation, and their use in critical care settings with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is not so well-known. We performed a systematic review of studies on thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry and their modifications to assess their role in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Inclusion criteria were any kind of studies using thromboelastography or rotational thromboelastometry during coronavirus disease critical illness published in English. Ninety-three articles, from December 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020, were identified in the initial search, out of which 12 articles (a total of 380 patients) satisfied the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry were observed to detect the hypercoagulable changes and fibrinolysis shutdown associated with COVID-19. Hypercoagulability is associated with an increased risk of venous thrombosis and micro-thrombosis. This review identifies the role of thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry in studying the mechanisms contributing to coagulopathy and incidence of thrombosis in COVID-19.