Prevalence of flexible bronchoscopic removal of foreign bodies in the advanced elderly

Michael Boyd, Franklin Watkins, Sonal Singh, Edward Haponik, Arjun Chatterjee, John Conforti, Robert Chin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives: To define the likelihood and establish the overall safety and effectiveness of flexible bronchoscopy in the removal of foreign bodies in the advanced elderly compared to those younger. Design: a retrospective case - control analysis. Setting: Tertiary care academic hospital. Population: 7,089 adults (age >18 years), including 949 (15%) advanced elderly (age >75 years), who underwent flexible bronchoscopy between January 1995 and June 2007. Measurements: In those patients with foreign body aspiration (FBA) (n = 20), a comparison of multiple clinical characteristics based on defined age groups (group 1, age <75 years and group 2, age >75 years) was performed. Results: FBA requiring bronchoscopic removal was greater than three and a half times more likely in patients aged >75 years compared to those younger (OR 3.78, CI 1.4-10: P <0.05). Flexible bronchoscopy was 87.5% effective in the removal of foreign bodies in the advanced elderly and associated with no increase in adverse events. Conclusion: Bronchoscopic removal of foreign bodies is more likely in the advanced elderly when compared to those younger. This implies that this population may be most at risk. Flexible bronchoscopy is a safe and effective initial diagnostic and therapeutic approach in this age group.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)396-400
Number of pages5
JournalAge and ageing
Volume38
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - 2009

Keywords

  • Advanced elderly
  • Elderly
  • Flexible bronchoscopy
  • Foreign body aspiration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Aging
  • Geriatrics and Gerontology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Prevalence of flexible bronchoscopic removal of foreign bodies in the advanced elderly'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this