Further attempts to remove the probe risked displacing it into the trachea. Otolaryngology consultation would delay probe removal, create a window of opportunity for probe migration into the trachea during the wait, and may have required transfer of the patient to an operating room. The patient was placed in the Trendelenburg position; general anesthesia was induced with additional propofol and succinylcholine; and an endotracheal tube was placed using a video laryngoscope. Once endotracheal intubation eliminated the risk of passage of this hard, small foreign body into the trachea, Magill forceps were used to remove the device from the laryngopharynx without trauma to the pharynx or glottis (Supplemental Digital Content, Video 1, http://links.lww.com/AACR/A247). After emergence, the patient’s airway was suctioned and the trachea extubated. The procedure time was only extended by about 10 minutes because of these interventions.
The patient was allowed to recover in the postanesthesia care unit for an additional hour before discharge home. The patient described a mild sore throat as expected from laryngoscopy and intubation, but reported no hoarseness, dysphagia, coughing, or myalgia from succinylcholine.
Dislodgment of a wireless pH monitoring probe has been discussed in gastroenterology endoscopic literature,6,7 but not anesthesiology literature. Most often, dislodged probes travel down the gastrointestinal tract and are of little consequence. However, tracheal aspiration of a hard foreign body can lead to laryngeal, tracheal, and bronchial damage, bronchospasm, pneumothorax, or pneumonia.8 Haseeb et al6 describe immediate intubation, positive pressure ventilation, transfer to another facility, and ridged bronchoscopy. Even if these injuries and sequelae do not occur, expert surgical assistance may be needed to remove the device from the oropharynx or trachea. In Kumar et al’s7 case, the patient was intubated, transferred to an operating theater, and surgical consultation was obtained, even though the probe was not aspirated into the trachea. These interventions are difficult or impossible to accommodate in an ambulatory care center with a busy procedure schedule. Even in a large hospital setting, urgent consultation and transport to an operating theater can put the patient at increased risk of morbidity and delay the care of other patients. There may be delays and lost revenue for the endoscopist, anesthesia provider, and the facility.
The video laryngoscope is a useful tool in addressing difficult airways and has been shown to provide optimal visualization for the removal of hypopharyngeal foreign bodies.9–13 Morris et al9 described the use of a video laryngoscope to remove hypopharyngeal foreign bodies in the operating room. They point out that given the curvature of the GlideScope (Verathon Inc, Bothell, WA) handle, foreign bodies can frequently be removed under conscious sedation, unlike direct laryngoscopy which often requires general anesthesia, intubation, and muscle paralysis.9 It is common for otolaryngologists to remove foreign bodies in this manner without first intubating the patient. Likewise, our first attempts at removing the probe were before intubating the patient.
The present case differs from reported use of video laryngoscopy to remove pharyngeal foreign bodies in a few key ways. In many reported cases, the foreign body is larger than a esophageal pH probe9,10 and easier to grasp. Smaller objects become dislodged into the hypopharynx as described by Cagini et al.11 These patients present to emergency departments and clinics with impacted hypopharyngeal foreign bodies. This impaction ensures that the foreign body is unlikely to move and be aspirated. If the foreign body was not impacted, it would have been either coughed out or aspirated by the time of presentation. In these cooperative patients who are at low risk for foreign body aspiration, topical anesthesia can be used.9,11 Finally, while nosocomial foreign body dislodgment and removal with a video laryngoscope have been described,12 it has always been addressed with otolaryngologists in an operating room environment rather than a lone anesthesiologist in an ambulatory care setting.
Esophageal pH probe dislodgment in a sedated and uncooperative patient presents a risk of aspiration of a small, hard foreign body that is not impacted, and is therefore free to move into the trachea. At the same time, the patient is sedated and has decreased airway reflexes. It has been shown that spontaneously breathing patients receiving propofol or sevoflurane have impaired coordination between swallowing and ventilation.13 Hypercapnia also likely plays a role in impairment of pharyngeal clearance. A higher rate of pathologic swallows in conjunction with an increased ventilatory drive can make aspiration of the probe into the trachea more likely.13 These findings were also described in patients receiving midazolam or morphine for sedation.14 Gemma et al15 showed that even when targeting drug levels for deep sedation, swallowing and pharyngeal clearance were impaired. Increasing age and body mass index also correlate with pathologic swallowing in the setting of deep sedation.
Transporting a deeply sedated and unintubated patient to the operating room for surgical removal of the foreign body requires either decreasing anesthesia for transport, which may lead to coughing and ventilatory distress, or possibly increasing the risk of aspiration. For this reason, while intubation is not required, it should be considered to eliminate the risk of aspiration in sedated patients with small, nonimpacted foreign bodies, in patients unable to cooperate during topical anesthesia of the airway, or in situations in which delay can lead to aspiration. Adequate equipment, specifically a video laryngoscope and Magill forceps, must be immediately available.
To our knowledge, this is the first report of removal of esophageal pH probe by anesthesiologists and is the first case where aspiration of a nosocomial foreign body was avoided using a video laryngoscope. Given the frequency of endoscopic procedures, displacement of these probes, while unusual, are increasingly likely to occur in ambulatory anesthesia populations. It is important that anesthesiologists become aware of this potential complication and the unique features of its presentation.
The authors thank Dr Stephen Curtis, MD, of Walter Reed National Military Medical Center Gastroenterology Service, Bethesda, MD, for his assistance in obtaining the endoscopic images for this report. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy of the Department of Army/Navy/Air Force, Department of Defense, or U.S. Government.
Name: Benjamin M. Kristobak, MD.
Contribution: This author helped supervise the case, review the literature, and write and edit the manuscript.
Name: Kathryn A. Crane, MD.
This author helped perform the case, review the literature, and edit the manuscript.
This manuscript was handled by: Raymond C. Roy, MD.
1. Streets CG, DeMeester TR. Ambulatory 24-hour esophageal pH monitoring: why, when, and what to do. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003;37:14–22.
2. Pandolfino JE, Zhang Q, Schreiner MA, et al. Acid reflux event detection using the Bravo wireless versus the slimline catheter pH systems: why are the numbers so different? Gut. 2005;54:1687–1692.
3. Lawenko RM, Lee YY. Evaluation of gastroesophageal reflux disease using the Bravo capsule pH system. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;22:25–30.
4. Patel R, Chae S, Kumar A, Richter JE. Sedation and afternoon placement of the 48-hour wireless ambulatory pH capsule results in more reflux on the first day. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51:594–598.
5. Kessels SJM, Newton SS, Morona JK, Merlin TL. Safety and efficacy of wireless pH monitoring in patients suspected of gastroesophageal reflux disease: a systematic review. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2017;51:777–788.
6. Haseeb A, Lateef N, Bilal M, Gaurav K, Prudom J, Musani A. Bravo® capsule aspiration: a rare case report. Cureus. 2017;9:e1556.
7. Kumar A, Kramer E, Chokhavatia S. Unreported complication of Bravo pH capsule dislodged into the pyriform sinus. World J Gastrointest Endosc. 2015;7:573–574.
8. Fidkowski CW, Zheng H, Firth PG. The anesthetic considerations of tracheobronchial foreign bodies in children: a literature review of 12,979 cases. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:1016–1025.
9. Morris LM, Wax MK, Weber SM. Removal of hypopharyngeal foreign bodies with the GlideScope video laryngoscope. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2009;141:416–417.
10. Warner L, Daudia A. Use of the GlideScope in paediatric foreign body upper airway obstruction. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:1119–1120.
11. Cagini L, Ragusa M, Vannucci J, et al. Glide video laryngoscope for the management of foreign bodies impacted at the hypopharyngeal level in adults. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013;79:1259–1263.
12. Ho G, Singh N, Andrews J, Westhead P. Novel use of videolaryngoscopy to remove a foreign body. [published online July 7, 2015] BMJ Case Rep 2015. doi: 10.1136/bcr-2015-210011.
13. D’Angelo OM, Diaz-Gil D, Nunn D, et al. Anesthesia and increased hypercarbic drive impair the coordination between breathing and swallowing. Anesthesiology. 2014;121:1175–1183.
14. Hårdemark Cedborg AI, Sundman E, Bodén K, et al. Effects of morphine and midazolam on pharyngeal function, airway protection, and coordination of breathing and swallowing in healthy adults. Anesthesiology. 2015;122:1253–1267.
15. Gemma M, Pasin L, Oriani A, et al. Swallowing impairment during propofol target-controlled infusion. Anesth Analg. 2016;122:48–54.
Supplemental Digital Content
Copyright © 2019 International Anesthesia Research Society