A Prospective Comparison of Diaphragmatic Ultrasound and Chest Radiography to Determine Endotracheal Tube Position in a Pediatric Emergency Department
- 1 June 2009
- journal article
- research article
- Published by American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in PEDIATRICS
- Vol. 123 (6), e1039-e1044
- https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-2828
Abstract
BACKGROUND. Investigators report endotracheal tube misplacement in up to 40% of emergent intubations. The standard elements of confirmation have significant limitations. Diaphragmatic ultrasound is a potentially viable addition to the confirmatory process. Our primary hypothesis is that ultrasound is equivalent to chest radiography in determining endotracheal tube position within the airway in emergent pediatric intubations.METHODS. We enrolled a prospective, convenience sample from all intubated patients in our emergency department. The primary outcome was the agreement between diaphragmatic ultrasound and chest radiography for endotracheal tube position. On ultrasound, tracheal placement equaled bilateral diaphragmatic motion, bronchial placement equaled unilateral diaphragmatic motion, and esophageal placement equaled no or paradoxical diaphragmatic motion during delivery of positive pressure. Study sonographers were blind to radiographic results. Our secondary outcome was the timeliness of ultrasound versus chest radiography results. Our institutional review board approved this study with a waiver of informed consent.RESULTS. One hundred twenty-seven patients were enrolled. In 24 (19%) patients, the endotracheal tube was in the mainstem bronchus on chest radiography. There were no esophageal intubations in the sample. Ultrasound and chest radiography agreed on endotracheal tube placement in 106 patients (94 tracheal and 12 mainstem), for an overall agreement of 0.83. The sensitivity of ultrasound for tracheal placement was 0.91. The specificity of ultrasound for mainstem intubation was 0.50. Thirty-four patients had a second ultrasound by a separate, blinded sonographer; 33 of 34 of the results of the second sonographer were in agreement with the initial sonogram, for an interrater agreement of 97%. Clinically useful chest radiography results took a median of 8 minutes longer to achieve than ultrasound results.CONCLUSIONS. Diaphragmatic ultrasound was not equivalent to chest radiography for endotracheal tube placement within the airway. However, ultrasound results were timelier, detected more misplacements than standard confirmation alone, and were highly reproducible between sonographers.This publication has 21 references indexed in Scilit:
- Use of Bedside Ultrasonography for Endotracheal Tube Placement in Pediatric Patients: A Feasibility StudyPEDIATRICS, 2007
- The Sensitivity and Specificity of Transcricothyroid Ultrasonography to Confirm Endotracheal Tube Placement in a Cadaver ModelThe Journal of Emergency Medicine, 2007
- Pilot study to evaluate the accuracy of ultrasonography in confirming endotracheal tube placementAnnals of Emergency Medicine, 2007
- 2005 American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) of Pediatric and Neonatal Patients: Pediatric Basic Life SupportPEDIATRICS, 2006
- Confirmation of Endotracheal Tube Placement after Intubation Using the Ultrasound Sliding Lung SignAcademic Emergency Medicine, 2006
- Emergency Physician–Verified Out-of-hospital Intubation: Miss Rates by ParamedicsAcademic Emergency Medicine, 2004
- The use of capnography for recognition of esophageal intubation in the neonatal intensive care unitPediatric Pulmonology, 1995
- Comparison of ultrasound with fluoroscopy in the Assessment of suspected hemidiaphragmatic movement abnormalityClinical Radiology, 1995
- Sonographic verification of endotracheal tube position in neonates: A modified techniqueJournal of Clinical Ultrasound, 1988
- Ultrasound confirmation of endotracheal tube placementJournal of Clinical Ultrasound, 1987