British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2002, Vol. 88, No. 1 127-129
© 2002 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia
Short Communications |
Reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation
1Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Cairns Base Hospital, The Esplanade, Cairns 4870, Australia 2Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Leopold-Franzens University, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria*Corresponding author
LMA® is the property of Intavent Limited.
Background. We studied the reliability of epigastric auscultation to detect gastric insufflation in 30 anaesthetized, paralysed intubated patients.
Methods. A 16FG gastric tube was positioned with the tip in the mid-oesophagus with the proximal end attached to an injection port with a one-way valve. Four observers participated in the study. Observers were paired and each pair studied 15 patients. Each patient underwent four test sequences in random order, two by each observer. Each test sequence comprised one observer injecting different volumes of air (0.25 ml, 0.5 ml, 1 ml, 2 ml, 3 ml, 4 ml, 5 ml, 10 ml, 15 ml and 0 ml as a control) in random order whilst the second blinded observer listened with a stethoscope over the epigastrium. Each randomized volume was injected rapidly at 5 s intervals for 1 min. The number of injections required to detect air entering the stomach was recorded. The stomach was deflated between each test sequence.
Results. To detect air entering the stomach with 95% confidence, 11 injections were required for 0.25 ml; 7 for 0.5 ml; 3 for 1 ml; 2 for 2 ml and 3 ml, and 1 for 
4 ml. The mean (range) inter- and intraobserver reliability was 0.73 (0.71–0.75) and 0.76 (0.76–0.89), respectively. The incidence of false positives was 21% (25/120) and the incidence of false negatives was 10% (103/1080), making the specificity and sensitivity 79% and 91%, respectively.
Conclusions. We conclude that epigastric auscultation can detect gastric insufflation of 0.25 ml air after 11 breaths and 4 ml air after one breath with 95% confidence. Inter- and intraobserver reliability is moderate to excellent. Epigastric auscultation should be repeated to reduce the risk of false positives.
Br J Anaesth 2002; 88: 127–9
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  M. Hohlrieder, J. Brimacombe, A. von Goedecke, and C. Keller Postoperative nausea, vomiting, airway morbidity, and analgesic requirements are lower for the ProSeal laryngeal mask airway than the tracheal tube in females undergoing breast and gynaecological surgery Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2007; 99(4): 576 - 580. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Garcia-Aguado, J. Vinoles, J. Brimacombe, M. Vivo, R. Lopez-Estudillo, and G. Ayala Suction catheter guided insertion of the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway is superior to the digital technique: [L'insertion du masque larynge ProSealTM, guidee par une sonde d'aspiration, est superieure a la technique digitale]. Can J Anesth, April 1, 2006; 53(4): 398 - 403. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Lopez-Gil, J. Brimacombe, L. Barragan, and C. Keller Bougie-guided insertion of the ProSealTM laryngeal mask airway has higher first attempt success rate than the digital technique in children Br. J. Anaesth., February 1, 2006; 96(2): 238 - 241. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Lopez-Gil, J. Brimacombe, and G. Garcia A randomized non-crossover study comparing the ProSealTM and ClassicTM laryngeal mask airway in anaesthetized children Br. J. Anaesth., December 1, 2005; 95(6): 827 - 830. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. S. Vaughan, I. T. Campbell, S. Patel, G. Turner, J. Brimacombe, and C. Keller Aspiration and the laryngeal mask airway Br. J. Anaesth., April 1, 2005; 94(4): 545 - 547. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. von Goedecke, J. Brimacombe, C. Hormann, H. -C. Jeske, A. Kleinsasser, and C. Keller Pressure Support Ventilation Versus Continuous Positive Airway Pressure Ventilation with the ProSealTM Laryngeal Mask Airway: A Randomized Crossover Study of Anesthetized Pediatric Patients Anesth. Analg., February 1, 2005; 100(2): 357 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. von Goedecke, C. Keller, H. G. Wagner-Berger, W. G. Voelckel, C. Hormann, A. Zecha-Stallinger, and V. Wenzel Developing a Strategy to Improve Ventilation in an Unprotected Airway with a Modified Mouth-to-Bag Resuscitator in Apneic Patients Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2004; 99(5): 1516 - 1520. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Brimacombe, A. von Goedecke, C. Keller, L. Brimacombe, and M. Brimacombe The Laryngeal Mask Airway UniqueTM versus the Soft SealTM Laryngeal Mask: A Randomized, Crossover Study in Paralyzed, Anesthetized Patients Anesth. Analg., November 1, 2004; 99(5): 1560 - 1563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. von Goedecke, W. G. Voelckel, V. Wenzel, C. Hormann, H. G. Wagner-Berger, V. Dorges, K. H. Lindner, and C. Keller Mechanical Versus Manual Ventilation via a Face Mask During the Induction of Anesthesia: A Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Study Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2004; 98(1): 260 - 263. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Kihara and J. Brimacombe Sex-Based ProSealTM Laryngeal Mask Airway Size Selection: A Randomized Crossover Study of Anesthetized, Paralyzed Male and Female Adult Patients Anesth. Analg., July 1, 2003; 97(1): 280 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Dimitriou, G. S. Voyagis, C. Iatrou, and J. Brimacombe The PAxpressTM is an effective ventilatory device but has an 18% failure rate for flexible lightwand-guided tracheal intubation in anesthetized paralyzed patients: [Le PAxpressTM est un appareil de ventilation efficace, mais presente un taux d'echec de 18 % pour l'intubation tracheale sous guidage lumineux flexible chez les patients anesthesies paralyses] Can J Anesth, May 1, 2003; 50(5): 495 - 500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Brimacombe and C. Keller REPLY Can J Anesth, May 1, 2003; 50(5): 526 - 526. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Dimitriou, G. S. Voyagis, C. Iatrou, and J. Brimacombe A Comparison of the PAxpressTM and Face Mask Plus Guedel Airway by Inexperienced Personnel After Mannequin-Only Training Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2003; 96(4): 1214 - 1217. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. Asai, A. Kawashima, I. Hidaka, and S. Kawachi The laryngeal tube compared with the laryngeal mask: insertion, gas leak pressure and gastric insufflation Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2002; 89(5): 729 - 732. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Brimacombe, C. Keller, and L. Brimacombe A Comparison of the Laryngeal Mask Airway ProSealTM and the Laryngeal Tube Airway in Paralyzed Anesthetized Adult Patients Undergoing Pressure-Controlled Ventilation Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2002; 95(3): 770 - 776. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|