Can airway obstruction be estimated by lung auscultation in an emergency room setting?

Tracheal Irrigation Without Bronchoscopy as an Alternative Emergent Treatment of Blood Aspiration

BACKGROUND

Tracheobronchial foreign body aspiration can cause mild symptoms but may also become dangerous enough to cause death. Bronchoscopy is the first choice for the diagnosis and the removal of aspirated foreign bodies. So, when bronchoscopy is not available, the situation might get challenging.

CASE REPORT

A 62-year-old man was waiting for emergent surgery for traumatic epidural hematoma in the Emergency Department (ED). Endotracheal intubation was performed for surgery and airway maintenance. However, oxygen saturation dropped and respiratory arrest was expected. As emergent bronchoscopy could not be performed, the emergency physician decided to irrigate the trachea by using 0.9% normal saline in the ED. After three rounds of irrigation, vital signs including oxygen saturation improved and the patient could undergo neurosurgical surgery. The patient was subsequently discharged with improved health. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Bronchoscopy is the first choice for the treatment and diagnosis in cases of bronchial aspiration of blood, such as that caused by epistaxis. However, in emergency situations, such as deteriorating vital signs due to aspiration of life-threatening amounts of blood from epistaxis, using blind tracheal irrigation as an alternative tool when bronchoscopy is not available can help in achieving clinically acceptable results.

The diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation in adult patients with acute pulmonary pathologies: a meta-analysis

The stethoscope is used as first line diagnostic tool in assessment of patients with pulmonary symptoms. However, there is much debate about the diagnostic accuracy of this instrument. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of lung auscultation for the most common respiratory pathologies. Studies concerning adult patients with respiratory symptoms are included. Main outcomes are pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, likelihood ratios (LRs), area under the curve (AUC) of lung auscultation for different pulmonary pathologies and breath sounds. A meta-regression analysis is performed to reduce observed heterogeneity. For 34 studies the overall pooled sensitivity for lung auscultation is 37% and specificity 89%. LRs and AUC of auscultation for congestive heart failure, pneumonia and obstructive lung diseases are low, LR− and specificity are acceptable. Abnormal breath sounds are highly specific for (hemato)pneumothorax in patients with trauma. Results are limited by significant heterogeneity. Lung auscultation has a low sensitivity in different clinical settings and patient populations, thereby hampering its clinical utility. When better diagnostic modalities are available, they should replace lung auscultation. Only in resource limited settings, with a high prevalence of disease and in experienced hands, lung auscultation has still a role.