Key result
EZ blockers linked to ~1.4 minutes longer placement than double lumen tubes but less sore throat.
Why the study?
Effective lung isolation is required in minimally invasive cardiac surgery, but data comparing EZ blockers to preferred double lumen tubes in this setting are limited.
Does the EZ blocker improve lung isolation efficiency and reduce postoperative complications compared to double lumen tubes in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery?
Case-Control (n=89)
No
Does the EZ blocker improve lung isolation efficiency and reduce postoperative complications compared to double lumen tubes in patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.6% vs 3.2%
p-value: p=0.02
EZ blocker is an effective alternative to double lumen tubes for one-lung ventilation in minimally invasive cardiac surgery, offering similar lung isolation with fewer postoperative airway symptoms despite a longer placement time.
EZ blockers may reduce airway symptoms in one-lung ventilation; leaves open net benefit versus double-lumen tubes in cardiac surgery.
Background/Aim: Effective lung isolation is required in minimally invasive cardiac surgery. Double lumen tubes (DLT) are most preferred for this type of operation, and data on the use of EZ blockers in cardiac surgery are limited. We aimed to compare the efficiency of the double lumen tube and EZ blockers in minimally invasive cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass performed through a right mini thoracotomy. Methods: A total of 89 patients who underwent minimally invasive cardiac surgery through right mini thoracotomy with cardiopulmonary bypass between January 1 and December 31, 2020, were included in this single-center, retrospective case control study. The group in which double lumen tubes were used for lung isolation (n = 58) was compared with that in which EZ blockers (n = 31) were used in terms of placement time, repositioning rate, lung collapse quality score, and postoperative sore throat and hoarseness. Results: The time needed to place the devices in the correct position was shorter in the DLT group (3.2 (2.7) min vs 4.6 (2.4) min, P=0.02). No significant difference was found between the prevalence of at least one repositioning and lung collapse quality scores (P=0.42, P=0.21). VAS scores for sore throat were lower and hoarseness was less encountered in the EZ blocker group (21.2 (8.8) vs 49.4 (7.6), P=0.01, 16.1% vs 48.2%, P=0.01, respectively). Conclusion: Although the EZ blocker has a longer placement time, it provides lung isolation as effective as DLT. Less sore throat and hoarseness show that EZ blocker is an important alternative for this type of surgery.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Onat Bermede (2021) conducted a case-control in Minimally invasive cardiac surgery (n=89). EZ blocker vs. Double lumen tube (DLT) was evaluated on Placement time (minutes) (p=0.02). EZ blockers required a longer placement time than double lumen tubes (4.6 vs 3.2 min, P=0.02) but provided effective lung isolation with less postoperative sore throat and hoarseness.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: