Cargando…

Comparison of Static versus Dynamic Ultrasound for the Detection of Endotracheal Intubation

INTRODUCTION: In the emergency department setting, it is essential to rapidly and accurately confirm correct endotracheal tube (ETT) placement. Ultrasound is an increasingly studied modality for identifying ETT location. However, there has been significant variation in techniques between studies, wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gottlieb, Michael, Nakitende, Damali, Sundaram, Tina, Serici, Anthony, Shah, Shital, Bailitz, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5851519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29560074
http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.12.36714
_version_ 1783306398007820288
author Gottlieb, Michael
Nakitende, Damali
Sundaram, Tina
Serici, Anthony
Shah, Shital
Bailitz, John
author_facet Gottlieb, Michael
Nakitende, Damali
Sundaram, Tina
Serici, Anthony
Shah, Shital
Bailitz, John
author_sort Gottlieb, Michael
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: In the emergency department setting, it is essential to rapidly and accurately confirm correct endotracheal tube (ETT) placement. Ultrasound is an increasingly studied modality for identifying ETT location. However, there has been significant variation in techniques between studies, with some using the dynamic technique, while others use a static approach. This study compared the static and dynamic techniques to determine which was more accurate for ETT identification. METHODS: We performed this study in a cadaver lab using three different cadavers to represent variations in neck circumference. Cadavers were randomized to either tracheal or esophageal intubation in equal proportions. Blinded sonographers then assessed the location of the ETT using either static or dynamic sonography. We assessed accuracy of sonographer identification of ETT location, time to identification, and operator confidence. RESULTS: A total of 120 intubations were performed: 62 tracheal intubations and 58 esophageal intubations. The static technique was 93.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [84.3% to 98.2%]) sensitive and 98.3% specific (95% CI [90.8% to 99.9%]). The dynamic technique was 92.1% (95% CI [82.4% to 97.4%]) sensitive and 91.2% specific (95% CI [80.7% to 97.1%]). The mean time to identification was 6.72 seconds (95% CI [5.53 to 7.9] seconds) in the static technique and 6.4 seconds (95% CI [5.65 to 7.16] seconds) in the dynamic technique. Operator confidence was 4.9/5.0 (95% CI [4.83 to 4.97]) in the static technique and 4.86/5.0 (95% CI [4.78 to 4.94]) in the dynamic technique. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that both the static and dynamic sonography approaches were rapid and accurate for confirming ETT location with no statistically significant difference between modalities. Further studies are recommended to compare these techniques in ED patients and with more novice sonographers.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5851519
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58515192018-03-20 Comparison of Static versus Dynamic Ultrasound for the Detection of Endotracheal Intubation Gottlieb, Michael Nakitende, Damali Sundaram, Tina Serici, Anthony Shah, Shital Bailitz, John West J Emerg Med Critical Care INTRODUCTION: In the emergency department setting, it is essential to rapidly and accurately confirm correct endotracheal tube (ETT) placement. Ultrasound is an increasingly studied modality for identifying ETT location. However, there has been significant variation in techniques between studies, with some using the dynamic technique, while others use a static approach. This study compared the static and dynamic techniques to determine which was more accurate for ETT identification. METHODS: We performed this study in a cadaver lab using three different cadavers to represent variations in neck circumference. Cadavers were randomized to either tracheal or esophageal intubation in equal proportions. Blinded sonographers then assessed the location of the ETT using either static or dynamic sonography. We assessed accuracy of sonographer identification of ETT location, time to identification, and operator confidence. RESULTS: A total of 120 intubations were performed: 62 tracheal intubations and 58 esophageal intubations. The static technique was 93.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] [84.3% to 98.2%]) sensitive and 98.3% specific (95% CI [90.8% to 99.9%]). The dynamic technique was 92.1% (95% CI [82.4% to 97.4%]) sensitive and 91.2% specific (95% CI [80.7% to 97.1%]). The mean time to identification was 6.72 seconds (95% CI [5.53 to 7.9] seconds) in the static technique and 6.4 seconds (95% CI [5.65 to 7.16] seconds) in the dynamic technique. Operator confidence was 4.9/5.0 (95% CI [4.83 to 4.97]) in the static technique and 4.86/5.0 (95% CI [4.78 to 4.94]) in the dynamic technique. There was no statistically significant difference between groups for any of the outcomes. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that both the static and dynamic sonography approaches were rapid and accurate for confirming ETT location with no statistically significant difference between modalities. Further studies are recommended to compare these techniques in ED patients and with more novice sonographers. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine 2018-03 2018-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5851519/ /pubmed/29560074 http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.12.36714 Text en Copyright: © 2018 Gottlieb et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) License. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
spellingShingle Critical Care
Gottlieb, Michael
Nakitende, Damali
Sundaram, Tina
Serici, Anthony
Shah, Shital
Bailitz, John
Comparison of Static versus Dynamic Ultrasound for the Detection of Endotracheal Intubation
title Comparison of Static versus Dynamic Ultrasound for the Detection of Endotracheal Intubation
title_full Comparison of Static versus Dynamic Ultrasound for the Detection of Endotracheal Intubation
title_fullStr Comparison of Static versus Dynamic Ultrasound for the Detection of Endotracheal Intubation
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Static versus Dynamic Ultrasound for the Detection of Endotracheal Intubation
title_short Comparison of Static versus Dynamic Ultrasound for the Detection of Endotracheal Intubation
title_sort comparison of static versus dynamic ultrasound for the detection of endotracheal intubation
topic Critical Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5851519/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29560074
http://dx.doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2017.12.36714
work_keys_str_mv AT gottliebmichael comparisonofstaticversusdynamicultrasoundforthedetectionofendotrachealintubation
AT nakitendedamali comparisonofstaticversusdynamicultrasoundforthedetectionofendotrachealintubation
AT sundaramtina comparisonofstaticversusdynamicultrasoundforthedetectionofendotrachealintubation
AT sericianthony comparisonofstaticversusdynamicultrasoundforthedetectionofendotrachealintubation
AT shahshital comparisonofstaticversusdynamicultrasoundforthedetectionofendotrachealintubation
AT bailitzjohn comparisonofstaticversusdynamicultrasoundforthedetectionofendotrachealintubation