ArticlePaediatric anaesthesia2024
Natural airway as an alternative to intubation for pediatric endoscopic esophageal foreign body removal: A retrospective cohort study of 326 patients.
Article in Paediatric anaesthesia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAnesthesia is required for endoscopic removal of esophageal foreign bodies (EFBs) in children. Historically, endotracheal intubation has been the de facto gold standard for airway management in these cases. However, as more elective endoscopic procedures are now performed under propofol sedation with natural airway, there has been a move toward using similar Monitored Anesthesia Care (MAC) for select patients who require endoscopic removal of an EFB.
methodsIn this single-center retrospective cohort study, we compared endoscopic EFB removal with either MAC or endotracheal intubation. Descriptive statistics summarized factors stratified by initial choice of airway technique, including intra- and postanesthesia complications and the frequency of mid-procedure conversion to endotracheal intubation in those initially managed with MAC. To demonstrate the magnitude of associations between these factors and the anesthesiologist's choice of airway technique, univariable Firth logistic and quantile regressions were used to estimate odds ratios (95% CI) and beta coefficients (95% CI).
resultsFrom the initial search, 326 patients were identified. Among them, 23% (n = 75) were planned for intubation and 77% (n = 251) were planned for MAC. Three patients (0.9%) who were initially planned for MAC required conversion to endotracheal intubation after induction. Two (0.6%) of these children were admitted to the hospital after the procedure and treated for ongoing airway reactivity. No patient experienced reflux of gastric contents to the mouth or dislodgement of the foreign body to the airway, and no patient required administration of vasoactive medications or cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Patients had higher odds that the anesthesiologist chose to utilize MAC if the foreign body was a coin (OR, 3.3; CI, 1.9-5.7, p < .001) or if their fasting time was >6 h. Median total operating time was 15 min greater in intubated patients (11 vs. 26 min, p < .001).
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that MAC may be considered for select pediatric patients undergoing endoscopic removal of EFB, especially those who have ingested coins, who do not have reactive airways, who have fasted for >6 h, and in whom the endoscopic procedure is expected to be short and uncomplicated. Prospective multi-site studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.