Hypopharyngeal Perforation Near-Miss During Transesophageal Echocardiography

• Published in: The Laryngoscope 2004-05, Vol.114 (5), p.821-826
• Main Authors: Aviv, Jonathan E., Di Tullio, Marco R., Homma, Shunichi, Storper, Ian S., Zschommler, Anne, Ma, Guoguang, Petkova, Eva, Murphy, Mark, Desloge, Rosemary, Shaw, Gary, Benjamin, Stanley, Corwin, Steven
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Biological and medical sciences; complications; Echocardiography, Transesophageal - adverse effects; endoscopy; Female; Hematoma - pathology; Humans; hypopharyngeal injury; Hypopharynx; Hypopharynx - injuries; Hypopharynx - pathology; Laryngoscopy - methods; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Otorhinolaryngology. Stomatology; patient safety; Pharyngeal Diseases - diagnosis; Pharyngeal Diseases - pathology; Prospective Studies; transesophageal echocardiography
• ISSN: 0023-852X; 1531-4995
• DOI: 10.1097/00005537-200405000-00006

Objectives/Hypothesis: The traditional blind passage of a transesophageal echocardiography probe transorally through the hypopharynx is considered safe. Yet, severe hypopharyngeal complications during transesophageal echocardiography at several institutions led the authors to investigate whether traditional probe passage results in a greater incidence of hypopharyngeal injuries when compared with probe passage under direct visualization. Study Design: Randomized, prospective clinical study. Methods: In 159 consciously sedated adults referred for transesophageal echocardiography, the authors performed transesophageal echocardiography with concomitant transnasal videoendoscopic monitoring of the hypopharynx. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive traditional (blind) or experimental (optical) transesophageal echocardiography. The primary outcome measure was frequency of hypopharyngeal injuries (hypopharyngeal lacerations or hematomas), and the secondary outcome measure was number of hypopharyngeal contacts. Results: No perforation occurred with either technique. However, hypopharyngeal lacerations or hematomas occurred in 19 of 80 (23.8%) patients with the traditional technique (11 superficial lacerations of pyriform sinus, 1 laceration of pharynx, 12 arytenoid hematomas, 2 vocal fold hematomas, and 1 pyriform hematoma) and in 1 of 79 patients (1.3%) with the optical technique (superficial pyriform laceration) (P = .001). All traumatized patients underwent flexible laryngoscopy, but none required additional intervention. Respectively, hypopharyngeal contacts were more frequent with the traditional than with the optical technique at the pyriform sinus (70.0% vs. 10.1% [P = .001]), arytenoid (55.0% vs. 3.8% [P = .001]), and vocal fold (15.0% vs. 3.86% [P = .016]). Conclusion: Optically guided trans‐esophageal echocardiography results in significantly fewer hypopharyngeal injuries and fewer contacts than traditional, blind transesophageal echocardiography. The optically guided technique may result in decreased frequency of potentially significant complications and therefore in improved patient safety.