Advertisment Mero
Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine
An open access publication of ISCCM™ 
 
Users online: 219 
     Home | Login 
  About Current Issue Archive Search Instructions Online Submission Subscribe Etcetera Contact  
  NAVIGATE Here 
  Search
 
  
 RESOURCE Links
 »  Similar in PUBMED
 »  Search Pubmed for
 »  Search in Google Scholar for
 »Related articles
 »  Article in PDF (520 KB)
 »  Citation Manager
 »  Access Statistics
 »  Reader Comments
 »  Email Alert *
 »  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free) 

  IN THIS Article
 »  Abstract
 » Introduction
 » Methods
 » Results
 » Discussion
 » Conclusions
 »  References
 »  Article Figures
 »  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed187    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded48    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 


 
 Table of Contents    
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 257-261

Reliability of ultrasonography in confirming endotracheal tube placement in an emergency setting


1 Department of Emergency Medicine, Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala, India
2 Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala, India

Date of Web Publication16-May-2017

Correspondence Address:
Cherish Paul
Department of Anaesthesia and Critical Care, Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute, Thrissur, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijccm.IJCCM_417_16

Rights and Permissions


 » Abstract 

Background and Objectives: Over the past few years, ultrasonography is increasingly being used to confirm the correct placement of endotracheal tube (ETT). In our study, we aimed to compare it with the traditional clinical methods and the gold standard quantitative waveform capnography. Two primary outcomes were measured in our study. First was the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography against the other two methods to confirm endotracheal intubation. The second primary outcome assessed was the time taken for each method to confirm tube placement in an emergency setting. Methods: This is a single-centered, prospective cohort study conducted in an emergency department of a tertiary care hospital. We included 100 patients with indication of emergency intubation by convenient sampling. The intubation was performed as per standard hospital protocol. As part of the study protocol, ultrasonography was used to identify ETT placement simultaneously with the intubation procedure along with quantitative waveform capnography (end-tidal carbon dioxide) and clinical methods. Confirmation of tube placement and time taken for the same were noted by three separate health-care staffs. Results and Discussion: Out of the 100 intubation attempts, five (5%) had esophageal intubations. The sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis using ultrasonography were 97.89% and 100%, respectively. This was statistically comparable with the other two modalities. The time taken to confirm tube placement with ultrasonography was 8.27 ± 1.54 s compared to waveform capnography and clinical methods which were 18.06 ± 2.58 and 20.72 ± 3.21 s, respectively. The time taken by ultrasonography was significantly less. Conclusions: Ultrasonography confirmed tube placement with comparable sensitivity and specificity to quantitative waveform capnography and clinical methods. But then, it yielded results considerably faster than the other two modalities.


Keywords: Capnography, emergency, intubation, ultrasonography


How to cite this article:
Thomas VK, Paul C, Rajeev PC, Palatty BU. Reliability of ultrasonography in confirming endotracheal tube placement in an emergency setting. Indian J Crit Care Med 2017;21:257-61

How to cite this URL:
Thomas VK, Paul C, Rajeev PC, Palatty BU. Reliability of ultrasonography in confirming endotracheal tube placement in an emergency setting. Indian J Crit Care Med [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 May 22];21:257-61. Available from: http://www.ijccm.org/text.asp?2017/21/5/257/206283



 » Introduction Top


Airway management skills are indispensable for an emergency physician. Unrecognized airway accidents such as esophageal intubation tend to occur more in emergency settings, [1] where it is reported as 6%-16%. [2]

Numerous studies have compared methods used for distinguishing between endotracheal and esophageal placement of the tube. Visual confirmation during laryngoscopy, expansion of the chest wall during ventilation, auscultatory method, capnography, and chest X-ray are modalities currently used in practice. These techniques vary in their degree of accuracy. [3],[4],[5],[6]

The Advanced Cardiac Life Support (ACLS) 2015 guidelines recommend continuous waveform capnography in addition to clinical assessment as the most reliable method of confirming and monitoring correct placement of an endotracheal tube (ETT). [7] In 1989, in a study, Vaghadia et al. came to a conclusion that end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO 2 ) is most accurate for identifying esophageal intubation. [8] Capnography has also been found to be the best method for rapid assessment of tube position. [2] Capnography is considered as the gold standard, but it has many limitations. Waveform capnography works on the principle of detection of carbon dioxide. This is only possible when there is sufficient pulmonary blood flow. In conditions where pulmonary blood flow is compromised such as massive pulmonary embolism and cardiac arrest, capnography is not reliable. [9]

Capnography is freely available in operation theaters but not in many emergency departments (EDs). Ultrasound, on the contrary, is emerging in most EDs as it is used in point of care imaging for trauma as well for guided interventions. [10] Ultrasound machine is portable, noninvasive, and the images are easily reproducible. [11] Various studies have shown that ultrasound is a potential method to confirm proper ETT placement. [12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[18] In our study, we aim to find the effectiveness of tracheal ultrasonography to confirm ETT placement with the existing methods.


 » Methods Top


This study was initiated after obtaining clearance from the Institutional Research and Ethics Committee. One hundred consecutive patients presented to ED with indication for endotracheal intubation were recruited into the study. Patients with significant neck or lung pathologies that would affect the study methods were excluded from the study. Tracheal sonography was performed using a SonoSite M-Turbo linear probe (13-6 MHz). A Philips M-20 monitor with a mainstream ETCO 2 analyzer was used for capnography.

Intubation was performed as per the standard hospital protocol which includes confirmation by quantitative waveform capnography and clinical methods looking for bilateral chest rise and 5- point auscultation. The tube was deemed as endotracheal if a typical square waveform capnography was observed along with detection of carbon dioxide of more than 4 mmHg after five breaths.

The sonographer identified the placement of tube as tracheal or esophageal as follows:

  • Tracheal intubation if only one air-mucosal (A-M) interface with reverberation artifact and posterior shadowing was observed [Figure 1]
    Figure 1: Sonographic image of tracheal intubation

    Click here to view
  • Esophageal intubation if two A-M interfaces posterior shadowing were noted, which is called a double tract sign [Figure 2].
    Figure 2: Sonographic image of esophageal intubation with "double tract" sign

    Click here to view


Time zero was the time at which the person who did the intubation confirmed the completion of intubation. Following this, three different health-care staff simultaneously confirmed the tube placement, and the time taken by each method was noted using a stopwatch. End time noted was the time when individual health-care staff confirmed tube placement with their modality [Pro forma 1].



Two primary outcomes were measured in our study. First was the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography against the other two methods to confirm endotracheal intubation. The second primary outcome assessed was the time taken for each method to confirm tube placement in an emergency setting.


 » Results Top


Among the 100 patients who underwent intubation, 59 were male and 41 were female. The mean age ± standard deviation was 50.79 ± 16.15 years. The most common indication for intubation was for airway protection (56%), followed by respiratory failure (23%) and for hemodynamic instability (21%).

Out of the 100 patients who underwent intubation, 95% were tracheal and 5% were esophageal. Tracheal ultrasonography correctly detected all 5% of esophageal intubations but misinterpreted 2% of tracheal intubations as esophageal.

The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the ultrasound method are shown in [Table 1].
Table 1: Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography

Click here to view


The sensitivity of the ultrasonography technique was compared with that of the other two modalities using McNemar test (two tail) which showed no statistically significant difference between the groups (P = 0.47).

The operating time of the different modalities is shown in [Table 2]. Statistically ultrasonography method (T1) took significantly less time compared to clinical (T2) and waveform capnography (T3) as shown in [Figure 3]. This was compared with Student's t-test (P < 0.001) when ultrasonography was compared with either capnography or clinical methods.
Figure 3: Time comparison

Click here to view
Table 2: Operating time of different modalities

Click here to view



 » Discussion Top


Identification of correct placement of ETT has been dependent on the airway specialist's skill in visualizing the vocal cords and on clinical methods to look for equal air entry on both lungs. [19] The vocal cords may not always be visualized, particularly in difficult airway and emergency settings. The accuracy of any technique to identify correct ETT placement is described by its sensitivity and specificity. [20] Many methods have evolved, but no single method has proved to be 100% reliable in distinguishing between tracheal and esophageal intubations. [19]

The ACLS, 2015, mentioned the different methods for identification of ETT placement including ultrasonography by placing a transducer transversely on the anterior part of the neck above the suprasternal notch. In addition, lung sliding sign on ultrasound of the thoracic cavity can identify movement of the lung. [18] It may also help in identifying endobronchial intubation. [20]

Quantitative waveform capnography is not widely available in EDs. [21] In a survey of the American National Emergency Airway Registry series, a total of 77% of physicians reported that colorimetric ETCO 2 detectors were available in their hospitals, but only 25% of respondents used continuous quantitative capnography. [22] Hence, another confirmation technique with an easily available equipment is a welcome in EDs. Ultrasound is commonly used in EDs [10] for purposes such as focused intensive care echocardiography, [23] focused assessment of sonography in trauma, [24],[25] and for vascular access. [25],[26]

Of late, ultrasound is being used in ED for the confirmation of ETT placement. [27]

The use of ultrasound to confirm ETT placement is attractive due to its portability and repeatability with good sensitivity and specificity. [28],[29],[30],[31] Moreover, ultrasonographic images are not affected by low pulmonary blood flow as compared to capnography. [32] Tracheal ultrasound detects esophageal intubation even before ventilating the patient, which prevents unnecessary forced ventilation to the stomach and its associated complications.

Using ultrasonography, ETT placement can be confirmed using tracheal, lung, or diaphragmatic scanning. Our study was performed using tracheal sonography which is the most common ultrasound modality used for the same. [12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37] Transtracheal ultrasound has a sensitivity of 95.7%-100% and a specificity of 96.3%-100% in identifying ETT placement. [38]

Different authors describe different sonographic features to diagnose tracheal and esophageal intubations, but close examination of the ultrasound images revealed that almost similar features were described differently. [12],[13],[14],[15],[16],[17],[28],[29],[30],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37] To date, studies are lacking that directly compare the accuracy of different sonographic features.

Our study results had 5% of esophageal intubations which was comparable to similar studies. [12],[29]

Four studies which used tracheal ultrasonography had detected 10% or more esophageal intubations [15],[28],[32],[34] with a high sensitivity and specificity. Three of these studies were conducted at the ED [15],[28],[32] by emergency medicine (EM) residents while one was conducted at the operating room by anesthesiologists. [34]

One study which used diaphragmatic movement to confirm tube placement had 21% esophageal intubation and detected it with a lower sensitivity (91.7%) and specificity (95.6%). [15]

Three studies which used cadaveric models had higher esophageal intubation rates of 37%-50%. [17],[31],[35] The sensitivity and specificity of one study was 100%. [17] The cause for high sensitivity and specificity was probably due to the fact that the operators were qualified EM physicians and the study was conducted in a planned laboratory setting.

The other two studies had a lower sensitivity and specificity, probably due to the fact that the operators were residents with <12 months' experience showing operator dependence.

The time required to confirm ETT intubation is an important consideration for any method used. Transtracheal ultrasound can be used for verification while the intubation is being performed or upon completion. Real-time sonographic imaging during intubation had higher sensitivity for detection of esophageal intubation than postintubation scanning. [12],[15],[30],[32],[33],[35],[36],[37],[38]

Using capnography, the patient's lungs would have to be ventilated 5 times for confirmation. [13] For this reason, transtracheal ultrasound can diagnose ETT intubation faster than capnography. Various studies have reported that the time required to perform transtracheal ultrasound ranged from 5 to 45 s. [37],[38],[39] Two studies compared timeliness of ultrasound with that of capnography and found that the median verification time with ultrasound was significantly shorter than with capnography. [40]


 » Conclusions Top


Ultrasonography, end-tidal capnography, and conventional clinical methods have comparable sensitivity and specificity in identifying tracheal or esophageal position of ETT.

However, ultrasonography detected the tube placement faster than the other two methods. The time difference is statistically significant, and, considering that the scenario is time critical, it has significant clinical importance. However, multi-centric trials with larger patient groups are needed before routine use of this modality.

Acknowledgment

We are thankful to "Jubilee Mission Medical College and Research Institute" and "Kerala University of Health Sciences" for providing the resources to conduct the study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
 » References Top

1.
Adriani J. Unrecognized esophageal placement of endotracheal tubes. South Med J 1986;79:1591-3.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Schwartz DE, Matthay MA, Cohen NH. Death and other complications of emergency airway management in critically ill adults. A prospective investigation of 297 tracheal intubations. Anesthesiology 1995;82:367-76.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Knapp S, Kofler J, Stoiser B, Thalhammer F, Burgmann H, Posch M, et al. The assessment of four different methods to verify tracheal tube placement in the critical care setting. Anesth Analg 1999;88:766-70.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Grmec S. Comparison of three different methods to confirm tracheal tube placement in emergency intubation. Intensive Care Med 2002;28:701-4.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Raphael DT, Benbassat M, Arnaudov D, Bohorquez A, Nasseri B. Validation study of two-microphone acoustic reflectometry for determination of breathing tube placement in 200 adult patients. J Am Soc Anesthesiol 2002;97:1371-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Salem MR. Verification of endotracheal tube position. Anesthesiol Clin North America 2001;19:813-39.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Link MS, Berkow LC, Kudenchuk PJ, Halperin HR, Hess EP, Moitra VK, et al. Part 7: Adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2015;132 18 Suppl 2:S444-64.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Vaghadia H, Jenkins LC, Ford RW. Comparison of end-tidal carbon dioxide, oxygen saturation and clinical signs for the detection of oesophageal intubation. Can J Anaesth 1989;36:560-4.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Cook TM, Nolan JP. Use of capnography to confirm correct tracheal intubation during cardiac arrest. Anaesthesia 2011;66:1183-4.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Sustic A. Role of ultrasound in the airway management of critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2007;35 5 Suppl: S173-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Galicinao J, Bush AJ, Godambe SA. Use of bedside ultrasonography for endotracheal tube placement in pediatric patients: A feasibility study. Pediatrics 2007;120:1297-303.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Chou HC, Chong KM, Sim SS, Ma MH, Liu SH, Chen NC, et al. Real-time tracheal ultrasonography for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement during cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation 2013;84:1708-12.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Chou HC, Tseng WP, Wang CH, Ma MH, Wang HP, Huang PC, et al. Tracheal rapid ultrasound exam (T.R.U.E.) for confirming endotracheal tube placement during emergency intubation. Resuscitation 2011;82:1279-84.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Hsieh KS, Lee CL, Lin CC, Huang TC, Weng KP, Lu WH. Secondary confirmation of endotracheal tube position by ultrasound image. Crit Care Med 2004;32 9 Suppl:S374-7.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Hosseini JS, Talebian MT, Ghafari MH, Eslami V. Secondary confirmation of endotracheal tube position by diaphragm motion in right subcostal ultrasound view. Int J Crit Illn Inj Sci 2013;3:113-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
16.
Lyon M, Walton P, Bhalla V, Shiver SA. Ultrasound detection of the sliding lung sign by prehospital critical care providers. Am J Emerg Med 2012;30:485-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Weaver B, Lyon M, Blaivas M. Confirmation of endotracheal tube placement after intubation using the ultrasound sliding lung sign. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:239-44.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.
Sim SS, Lien WC, Chou HC, Chong KM, Liu SH, Wang CH, et al. Ultrasonographic lung sliding sign in confirming proper endotracheal intubation during emergency intubation. Resuscitation 2012;83:307-12.  Back to cited text no. 18
[PUBMED]    
19.
Williamson JA, Webb RK, Szekely S, Gillies ER, Dreosti AV. The Australian Incident Monitoring Study. Difficult intubation: An analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesth Intensive Care 1993;21:602-7.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Blaivas M, Tsung JW. Point-of-care sonographic detection of left endobronchial main stem intubation and obstruction versus endotracheal intubation. J Ultrasound Med 2008;27:785-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.
Deiorio NM. Continuous end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement is neither widely available nor consistently applied by emergency physicians. Emerg Med J 2005;22:490-3.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.
Wayne MA, Slovis CM, Pirrallo RG. Management of difficult airways in the field. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3:290-6.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.
Price S, Via G, Sloth E, Guarracino F, Breitkreutz R, Catena E, et al. Echocardiography practice, training and accreditation in the intensive care: Document for the World Interactive Network Focused on Critical Ultrasound (WINFOCUS). Cardiovasc Ultrasound 2008;6:49.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.
Brenchley J, Walker A, Sloan JP, Hassan TB, Venables H. Evaluation of focussed assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) by UK emergency physicians. Emerg Med J 2006;23:446-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Maecken T, Grau T. Ultrasound imaging in vascular access. Crit Care Med 2007;35 5 Suppl:S178-85.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Arntfield RT, Millington SJ. Point of care cardiac ultrasound applications in the emergency department and Intensive Care Unit - A review. Curr Cardiol Rev 2012;8:98-108.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    
27.
Moore CL, Copel JA. Point-of-care ultrasonography. N Engl J Med 2011;364:749-57.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Abbasi S, Farsi D, Zare MA, Hajimohammadi M, Rezai M, Hafezimoghadam P. Direct ultrasound methods: A confirmatory technique for proper endotracheal intubation in the emergency department. Eur J Emerg Med 2015;22:10-6.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Adi O, Chuan TW, Rishya M. A feasibility study on bedside upper airway ultrasonography compared to waveform capnography for verifying endotracheal tube location after intubation. Crit Ultrasound J 2013;5:7.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Muslu B, Sert H, Kaya A, Demircioglu RI, Gözdemir M, Usta B, et al. Use of sonography for rapid identification of esophageal and tracheal intubations in adult patients. J Ultrasound Med 2011;30:671-6.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Göksu E, Sayraç V, Oktay C, Kartal M, Akcimen M. How stylet use can effect confirmation of endotracheal tube position using ultrasound. Am J Emerg Med 2010;28:32-6.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Park SC, Ryu JH, Yeom SR, Jeong JW, Cho SJ. Confirmation of endotracheal intubation by combined ultrasonographic methods in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas 2009;21:293-7.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Werner SL, Smith CE, Goldstein JR, Jones RA, Cydulka RK. Pilot study to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography in confirming endotracheal tube placement. Ann Emerg Med 2007;49:75-80.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Milling TJ, Jones M, Khan T, Tad-y D, Melniker LA, Bove J, et al. Transtracheal 2-d ultrasound for identification of esophageal intubation. J Emerg Med 2007;32:409-14.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Ma G, Davis DP, Schmitt J, Vilke GM, Chan TC, Hayden SR. The sensitivity and specificity of transcricothyroid ultrasonography to confirm endotracheal tube placement in a cadaver model. J Emerg Med 2007;32:405-7.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Das SK, Choupoo NS, Haldar R, Lahkar A. Transtracheal ultrasound for verification of endotracheal tube placement: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 2015;62:413-23.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Hoffmann B, Gullett JP, Hill HF, Fuller D, Westergaard MC, Hosek WT, et al. Bedside ultrasound of the neck confirms endotracheal tube position in emergency intubations. Ultraschall Med 2014;35:451-8.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Sun JT, Chou HC, Sim SS, Chong KM, Ma MHM, Wang HP, et al. Ultrasonography for proper endotracheal tube placement confirmation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: Two-center experience. J Med Ultrasound 2014;22:83-7.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Saglam C, Unlüer EE, Karagöz A. Confirmation of endotracheal tube position during resuscitation by bedside ultrasonography. Am J Emerg Med 2013;31:248-50.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Pfeiffer P, Rudolph SS, Børglum J, Isbye DL. Temporal comparison of ultrasound vs. auscultation and capnography in verification of endotracheal tube placement. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2011;55:1190-5.  Back to cited text no. 40
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Online since 7th April '04
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow